The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-27 00:00:00

The English Assurance Company.

Mr. Rigby, barrister, yesterday attended before Mr. Elliott
at the Lambeth Police-court, on the part of the directors of
the English Assurance Company, whose offices are now at
75, Little Britain, to offer an explanation on their behalf to
the complaints made by Mrs. Jackman, a poor widow, who
had insured the life of her husband for £lB, of not being

able to find the offices of the company, or a person named

Moring, the agent, who had collected her money.
Mr. Rigby's statement was of 'great length, but in sub-
stance it was as follows :—The English Assurance Com-

pany was, he said, properly establithed in January, 1864,
under the Joint Stock Companies Act, all the requirements
of which had been properly complied with ; and up to the
present time the proceedings connected with it had been
conducted with regularity. With regard to the case of

Mrs. Jackman the mistake was said to have arisen in this
way. The agent, Moring, with whom she had dealt in the
matter, ought, on receiving information of the death of Mr.
Jackman, to have supplied certain forms to Mrs. Jackman,
and on her filling them up he should have forwal ded them

to the office. This was not done, and the first intimation
of the fact reached the secretary through the police report in
the newspapers. He then did what was necessary in the
matter, and the money was paid. With regard to the state-
ment that the offices of the company could not be found, it
was said that up to a certain date they had been in Queen-
street, Cheapside, but that they were removed to Little
Britain—a clerk being left in the Queen-street premises for
a month afterwards, to give information, and a notice was
put up stating their new address. The name and address of
the company and the secretary were in two places in the di-
rectory. Each director was, Mr. Rigby said, a holder of 200
shares, the calls on which had been fully paid up ; they re-
ceived no remuneration for their services. In the course of
replies to Mr. Elliott, Mr. Rigby said that Moring had now
ceased to be an agent of the company; he had at one time
been a director. _ _

Mr. Elliott—Have you got any list of what you call di
rectors ?

The Solicitor who instructed Mr. Rigby here handed in
the following list, viz., Charles James How, J. Gilding, W.
F. Scott, G. J. Davis, and Charles Horton.
Mr. Elliott—ls the person Davis the same whose name I
see attached to your articles of association as a witness, and
who is there described as clerk to Mr. J. Long, solicitor ?

Solicitor—Yes, sir, the same.
Mr. Elliott—What, a solicitor's clerk a director of an

assurance company—that is not very usual ; and is Mr.
Charles Horton, whose address you give at 75, Little
Britain, your secretary as well as director?
Solicitor—No, sir, he is brother to the secretary.
Mr. Elliott—What is Mr. Horton, your director ?
Solicitor—A bootmaker.
Mr. Elliott -Have yoU got a list of the shareholders ?
Solicitor—We have 2,500 shares taken, and it would be a
large volume to bring here.
Mr. Elliott—Has anybody anything to say relative to this
case ?

Mr. Irving, a newsvender, residing inJubilee-place, Mile.

end-road, said that he held in his hand a policy of assurance
in the General Provident and Confident Assurance Company,
signed by D. Scott and Mr. Shephard, two of the directors
of the English, on which he had paid £ll to the agent, Mr.
Brown, of 17, Arbour-square, Stepney, and in the month of
August last Brown called on him, said that he had been
discharged fromhis office of collector, and recommended him
not to pay any more money, as it was a general swindle. The
next time he went to the office of the company ho found that
they had not even his name in their books, except when
the policy was entered. That was the only time, and he
was told that Brown had been keeping his money all the
way through, not even paying it into the society superin-
tended by the respectable gentlemen these parties bring
I here. . _

Mr. Rigby—But you are speaking of a different com-
pany.
Mr. Elliott—But the names of the parties are the same,
and if they choose to be connected with the company they
must take the consequence.
Chief Clerk—This policy is in 1853.
Mr. Elliott—The policy is signed by the persons who
now constitute the company ?
Mr. Rigby—l do not know what Mr. Irving is complain-
ing of, but it is only fair to say that there is nothing due
on the policy.
Mr. Irving—l admit that I was told it was nothing but
a swindle, and I refused to pay any more money. I went
to the shop of Mr. Gelding, one of the directors, who is
represented as a boot manufacturer, and found it was only
half a shop. He was working on a shoemaker's seat with
leather apron on. (Laughter.) I have witnesses to prove
to two or three other policies held by relatives of mine.
Mr. Elliott—l don't think that he is the most fit and pro-
per person to represent this company. How does his name
stand in the prospectus ?
Chief Clerk—The address, London-house, Mile-end-
road, boot manuficturer.
Mr. Irving—lt is a small double-fronted shop; on one side
a tailor's shop, and on the other a cigar shop, with about
half-a-crown's worth of stock in it, and in the back room
where I went there were two or three men at work, and
Mr. Gelding was also sitting there with a leather apron on.
I have witnesses to prove it.
Mrs. Sophia Hogg, the wife of a linendraper, in White-
chapel, said that in July, 1862, she insured her three sons
in the Provident and Confident,• and paid the collector,
Algernon Thomas Brown, of-17, Arbour-square, Stepney,
who collected the premiums, as much as £l7 2s. In August
last her youngest son died, and she then applied for £3 due
on his policy. She also offered the manager, at the office
in King-street, Covent-garden, the whole of the policies for
sale, as she had heard it was a bad concern, and said she
should be glad to take £lO for the £l7 she had paid, and
was told that £1 for each premium would be nearer the
mark. She refused to take this, and it was eight weeks
before she received 305., all they would give on the policy
of her deceased son. Their conduct at the office satisfied
her that there was not the slightest use her continuing her
payments, and therefore she discontinued and lost nearly
£l6.
Mrs. Jackman here came forward and said that she had
been to the office in Queen-street after the death of her
husband, but could obtain no information there as to where
the English office had been removed to. In reply to a
question from Mr Rigby as to whether her claim had not
been settled, she replied that it had.
A gentleman, who described himself as the secretary of
the Reliance Life Office, said he appeared there in conse-
quence of Mrs. Jackman having said on a former occasion
that his (the Reliance) office was connected with this com-
pany. He begged to deny it.
Mr. Elliott—That was evidently an error.
After a few more remarks at the close of the case, Mr.
Elliott said—lt appears to me that this investigation of
Mrs. Jackman's case will be of great advantage to the pub-
lic. It has elicited very important information as to the
nature of these companies, and I take this opportunity of
saying that it seems to me to be a very fortunate thing that
in the last session of Parliament an act was passed which
enables persons in humble circumstances of life, instead of
trusting to such companies as these, to get Government
security for their deposits, either for their savings or in-
surance. The act passed last session was consequent upon
representations and statements made of the workings of
companies which had been existing and still appear to
exist, which are of the most dangerous character. The act
which has been passed will enable parties in future, by
paying premiums, to insure their lives or an annuity with-
out running the risk they have hitherto done, and it can-
not be too widely
known that such an act does exist.