The National Register.
London, England, 1820-12-25 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

in case of total loss, would crush the greatest numherof
persons cat rying on the business. That circumstance ought
to press on your consideration. Another circumstatice is
this:—that whether it has been right or wrong not to e orn-
mune:ate this improvement to the Insurance Company, this
is a case in which it is quite impossible to fix on the plain-
tiffs any fraudulent intention, nor is it su intimated. On the
contrary, the intentiou to impute fraud is disclaimed. The
case indeed speaks for itself; fur it i. hardly to be supposed
they would have introduced a dangerous process to their
own injury; and therefore if it should turn out that you
doubt whether this is a dangerous process, the plaintiff,
ought to have the benefit of that doubt. if your decision
should be against them on the subject 01 U 0 communication
having been made, not one of the Jury will more lament it
than I shall; but still in our respective situations Justice
must be dose. 1 then come to the question, whether the
lose to the amount of 70,0001. is to fall 011 a few individuals
or the different Members of a society who hold small shares?
and that is a subject fur yonr cousideratien. I now con-
sider it necessary to make one or two observations on the
lefendants. They are Directors of the Pheenix Insurance
Company, and as such, without looking to their own
interest, are trustees fur a considerable body of persons.
Property of this nature, you are well aware, consists of
different shares, which perhaps constitute the support of
widows anti orphans, and it is their duty to subject every case
to examination if suspicion is at all entertained. I have
therefore 110 hesitation iu saying, under the extraordinary
circumstances of this case, unparalleled in my recollection
in a Court of Justice, if the Directors had not defended
this action they would have been guilty of negligence."
The Learned Judge then adverted to the fusilier trial,
and remarked that the evidence hail been completely
chan,,,ed. The question ot• fact now was, first, where
did the fire arise, ur in other words, how did it break out?
The next question was, whether or not the new process was
more dangerous titan the old ? If it was more dangerous than
the old, there would be an end of the case. If it was, the
plaintiffs had no right to introduce itwithout vet ying the risk.
If the Jury concluded it was more da ogre tele, they ought to
find a verdict for the defendants. it the lire hi uke out where
the machine was used, it would perhaps prod• the process
was more dangerous than the old process. They bad heard
fifteen or twenty witnesses, all of whom had sworn to the
tact of its having broken out at the corner of Union-street,
and it was attributed to the sugar boiling over. It was
most extraordinary, that at the last trial the cause of the
fire was unknown. It was merely attributed to the care-
lessness of the workmen coin;ng to get their candles. The
new attempt to ix the tire to the boding over of the sugar
vat was then a subject for their consideration. The man
who could have proved whether the tire happened there or
net was examined by the Directors. Muller, the man who
had the care of the apparatus, had blundered—first saying,
no oil was used, and then admitting that it was used. Miller
said it broke out in Union-street, and that it was so rapid
that he had not time to save hi, clothes. If the Jury be-
lieved this, it wueld only raise the presumption that it was
a dangerous mucus'. The heat que.tion was, the cause !
Whether or not the new process was more dangerous than
the old? On that point the Jury had beard all immense
body of evidence, consisting of the testimony of enlightened
philosophic men, many of whom said it was impossible the
apparatus could have produced the accident. On the con-
trary, it was less dais .erous than the old process. Here the
Learned Judge adverted to the testimony of Dr. Thompson,
of Glasgow, Dr. Davy, and others, who supported the plain-
tids case. It was, however, judgment opposed to judgment,
theory to theory, yid strange as it inieht appear, expel i-
ntents had led to different results. Who was to decide this
mighty contention? He was nut able. He was not totally
ignorant on the subject; but a little learning was a dense.
rolls thing. Ile had some doubt of his own knowledge,
and was not ashamed to own it. The man who never
doubted would never examine. Doubt had been called by
the great Lord Bacon the key of knowledge. It was, bow-
ery, not the duty of a Judge to decide; it exclusively
belonged to the Jury. Some among the Jury might be
well acquainted with the path of science, which he would
only say, like day-light, must be progressise. In a case
where 70,0001. was depending, and *here it was impossible
to attribute fraud, they ought to consider whether it would
not be dangerous to give their verdict against the plaintiff's.
It was an honest ease. There was no fraud. The Learned
Judge then came to the law point in the case, namely, wive.
Cher the concealment of the new process rendered the
Policy void? It was clear the apparatus was not regularly
cotnintinicated, and he wished the Jury to say, whether it
was a safe or dangerous process. On the conditions of the
Polley. which lie read, nutiec of all improvements in ma-
terials productive of heat was to be given to the Company.
ur the Policy was to he void. Ile should reserve the point
if necessary. At the conclusion of his charge the Learned
Judge observed, that he could nut have supposed that for
six days together twelve Gentlemen could have entered the
Jury-bus with so much willingness and readiness to dis-
charge their duty. Not the slighte.t complaint of incon-
eclectics: had escaped them, and the country, us well as the
parties, were imply utilized to them.
The Jury reified at live o'clock, and returned at a quarter
to seven. they then found a verdict for the
D ges 15,0001.
The Foremaii then said, " We ore of opinion the ere
broke nut at the corner of Uuiuuslrrrt, nnd not under the
..Cl5 linwess. WO hi I!. Ow of °Whit/II Oat the new proceei
is les. dangerous time the old. We thick Scsern and CO.
did 11811 guts. soti•r of the apparatus, because the defendant's
Sui sof or had lover ted
The vet dirt nil% 1111/1/111dy hailed with loud shouta of tri-
umph, by a numerous 1)64 of persons in the Court and the
avenues, who appeared much interested in the event.
One of the Jury then said, he had sat as Juror %heti
the late Lord Kenyon and lillenhorough presided as
Judgesond he was proud to ►a)', the urbanity of his Lord-
Alp was inure di•linguidied on this trial than lie had ever
before ex rierien.'vel.
Judge Dulles.—t' Then gentlemen 1 am more than re-
warded.''
A conversation next ensued ui the want of communie:it son
wi•li respect to the process, and the Jai y after cell-akin_
again iu the Bus, decl.,red they mere of °ldaho, limo.: no!,
t.//1. CUllloltlllitatillo, as Olt' hull ye, or 1110 lieu U.

•
The ca,c hying Asspo.t.•tl of, the Jthlge.ilti, that lii. "pi-
nion $% that 1111tH ith-insulitt;.; thr ahuht, oat the di ut thr
leartied tacit, the Jihry h4ll J yldCd oh the listi•

1111,N41141, DdC.
JoSEPHS 1“.1.TY.

This W3ll au action alt j 13iU of Exchange, held b)
the pLiiiihilf flit 581. The Iwttd•u matt of thr vti lie:, 111
my Wt. :Intl the fu:t of the plaitit.ti the Irma fide
11014vr 0: the si runt), at well iNtue tiCiliSJAISeb uttclUAl

ill

liability, were admitted, but it wall pfeeded that since
the making of the hill the defendant had been a bank-
rupt, and had obtained his certificate. These facts were
were also admitted by the plaintiff; but it was further
stated that the defendant had been twice a bankrupt,
and had not paid fifteen shillings in the pound under
the second commission, under these circiiiirstancer the
Jury, by his Lordship's direction, found a verdict fo► the
plaintiff for 601. 10s. the amount of the bill and imereit,
with this special indorsement, that SW defendant had
been twice a bankrupt and obtained his certificate. but
had not paid fifteen shillings in the pound under the
last commission.