The Sun.
London, England, 1854-12-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. G.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

COMPAGNIE V. THE DIRECTORS OF THE DEFEND3R FIRE

INSURANCE COMPANY.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Bramwell, and Mr. Haw-
kins appeared for the plaintiff; and Sir F. Thesiger,
Mr. Lush, and Mr. Giffard for the company.
This was an action on a policy of insurance effected
on the 6th of October, 1853, to take effect from the 20th
of September previously, and was made on the furniture
and stock in trade of the plaintiff, situated at Nos. 12
and. 13, Pump-row Old-street-road. The defendants
pleaded first, that they had been induced to make the
policy by the fraudulent representations of the plaintiff ;
secondly, that be had no interest in the goods, as al-
leged ; fourthly, that the plaintiff had not delivered a
particular account as required by the conditions of the
policy ; fifthly, that he had made a false and fraudulent
claim ; sixthly, that he had wilfully caused the fire ; and
lastly, the common form of plea, that they were never
indebtvd as alleged. The plaintiff took issue on all
these pleas.
A large mass of evidence having Leen adduced to show
that the property of the plaintiff was not of the value
represented, m support of the plea that he had made a
fraudulent claim,

Sir F.abesiger summed up the evidence for the de-
fence, and

The Attorney-General replied on the whole case in a
most able speech of three hours' duration.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, said that when an in-
surance office had reasonable ground for suspecting,
from the evidence submitted to them that a fraud had
been committed, they were not only justified in, but
were bound to have the matter investigated by a jury.
There could be no doubt but that the greatest benefit
was conferred by insurances on life and against fire ; but
there was also no doubt that, both as regarded fire and
life insurances, the most dreadful frauds had been com-
mitted, and, if facilities were given for the perpetra-
tion of such frauds, the mast disastrous consequences
must be the result. But, while a jury should pro-
tect as insurance company against fraud, they should
at the same time take care that the rights of the
honest man were duly protected. When an insurance
office imputed fraud the burden of the proof lay on the
offiee. On nearly all the issues on which no evidence
had been offered, or which could not be supported, it
would be their duty to find for the plaintiff; but there
involving the most serious consequences,
would he their duty to determine. The first of
theselwastwissues,
that the plaintiff had wilfully caused the fire,
wawniedriceh itthe other that he had made a false and fraudulent
claim on the defendants. The charge that the plaintiff
had set fire to his house was very grave, and was sup-
ported by cogent evidence. The plaintiff certainly
stood on his trial, and was the party accused, so he la-
boured under some disadvantages ; but he had also this
advantage, that he had been enabled to give evidence in
his own behalf, which ho could not have done had he
stood at the bar of a criminal court. He and the cab-
man had represented that he had left the premises at
twenty minutes before seven o'clock, the fire not having
broken cut before eight o'clock. Then there was
strong evidence on the other side that he had remained
there considerably later. The evidence about his
not allowing his bey and his dog to remain on the
premises was entirely removed by the fact that nei-
ther man, boy, nor dog had slept there for six nights
before. In considering the next question, whether
he had made a false and fraudulent claim on the com-
pany, the jury must not allow any suspicion which they
might entertain on the other issue to bias their decision
on this. The evidence showed that the claim was exces-
sive, but it was for the jury to say whether or not it was
fraudulent.

The jury retired at half•past four o'clock, and after
half an huur's absence returned to court, when
The Foreman said that they found that the plaintiff had
not wilfully caused the fire, and on the other issue that
he had not male a fraudulent claim on the office, but
that they considered the claim exces,,ive.
Lord Oarnpbeli—Excessive, but not fraudulent. Then
on both issues there will be a verdict for the plaintiff.
Now, gentlemen, I must trouble you to retire and con-
sider the items of the claim so as to return a verdict for
damages, unless counsel on both sides can settle that
between themselves.

The jury expressed a hope that that duty would not
devolve on them, and one of them said that they only
thought the claim as to the furniture was excessive,
which was demurred to by others.
Mr. Lush and Mr. Hawkins then consulted as to the
damages, but could sot agree, the latter stating that the
company only offered a third of the sum claimed.
Lord Campbell—The office having done its duty in
defending this action, can only be desirous of doing
what is right by the plaintiff. We will go over the
items to the jury, and see if the office gains anything by
holding out.
As the jury could not agree on the amount to be
awarded on the claim of 881. for furniture,
Lord Campbell directed them to retire.
The Foreman—l hope, my lord, if we are to re-
tire, your lordship will direct us to be shown to a
better room. The room we were in is up five eights
of stairs.

Lerd Campbe‘ll I am really very sorry, gentle-
men ; it is very disgraceful, but I have no better room
for you.

The Foreman--Up five lights of stairs, and some of
us had great difficulty in getting up. There was some-
body at the top of the stairs, with no candle in his hand,
calling out to us " Come along, come along." (Laughter.)
The jury then retired, and on their return stated
they considered the lota' loss to be 7001., including
2001., the value of some hardwood alleged by the plain-
tiff to have been covered by the insurance which was
denied by the defendants, and was to have depended on
the construction which the court might have put on the
word " therein" in the policy.
It was then agreed by counsel to " split the differ-
ence," and a verdict was entered for the plaintiff—
Damages 6001.
The Court did not rise till a late hour.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

LORD JOHN THYNNI V. OGLE.-lISE, OCCUPATION, AND

DILAPIDATIONS

Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Willis appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. T. Chambers repre-
sented the defendant:

This was an action for use, and occupation, and dilapi-
dations resulting from the untenant-like manner in which
it was alleged the defendant had treated a farm in the
neighbourhood of Barnet. There was also a count for
money to be paid to out-going tenants for stock and
crops. The trial occupied the whole of the day, but
the plaintiff's case had not been concluded at the rising
of the court.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
THE ERNEST MERCK.-PRIZE.
In this case, which had occupied a very large portion
of the time of the court,

Dr. Lushington delivered an exceedingly elaborate
judgment, but the facts were of so intricate and con-
fused a character that it would be utterly impossible to
convey anything like a clear idea of them without occu-
pying an amount of space immeasurably greater than
their public interest. Dr. Lushington declared that on
many grounds it would be impossible to restore the
•essel, and he must therefore condemn it as a lawful
prize.

THE ATLANTIC.-PRIZE.
This was a case of further proof. The vessel had been
seized at Leith in September last, on suspicion of being
Russian property. On the 28th of October a claim had
been given in by Messrs. Baker and Behring, of Liver-
pool, who had sworn that they were British subjects,
the sole owners of the ship, and that no foreigner had
any right, title, or interest in her whatever. They had,
however, subsequently abandoned their claim.
Dr. Lushington said there could be no doubt that a
great fraud had been attempted to be practised upon the
court by the deponents. He should condemn the vessel,
and also condemn the parties in the costs.

e examination
tin
pursuance
of
n
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque.)
IN RE JOSEPH WINDLE COLE.
bankrupt was a merchant, of 19, Birchin-lane, who is
This was the
iamd jpor
stoenernd
n
tneollwC euonfdtehr eg uCi entralal Criminal Court. At the last meet-
ing, the trial not having taken place, an adjournment
was ordered for two months. No accounts have been
the sTehe-
filed, but debts to the amount of 200,01)0/, have been
proved.
The bankrupt was brought up in custody, and in an-
swer to questions by Mr. Murray, who appeared for the
assignees, made the following statement :—I commenced
business in May, 1848, under the firm of Cole, Brothers,
but I had no partner. I had been bankrupt in 1847, and
had, no capital when I re-commenced business, except
loans from friends. I never took stock ; I did no busi-
ness that required it. I had an estimate in my own mind
of the state of my affairs. In 1848 and 1849 I was
rather prosperous. I knew continually the general re-
sult of my affairs ; they were most prosperous in
the early part of 1853. I could not state what I
then owed without reference to my papers, which I have
not seen for the last five months. My business origin-
ally was with the East Indies, executing orders, receiv-
ing consignments, and making shipments on my own
account. My transactions were very extensive ; in
1853, I should think about two millions, including every-
thing arising out of them. The goods which I bought,
sold, or consigned were principally tin, copper, spelter,
and iron. The books I kept were invoice-book, the
bankers' pass-book, and the bankers cheque-book, also
a letter-book and insurance books. I kept no cash-book,
ledger, or iournal. I made my bankers' cheque-book a
rough cash :book. I should have spoilt my operations
if I had allowed my clerks to write a journal of them.
My cheque-books will enable me to make up a cash acs
count. I paid into my bankers all my receipts, and
made all my payments through my bankers. I stopped
payment on the 27th •f June. I had then in my
possession, or under my control, two bills, two small
warrants, and the surplus of some consignments or
loans. I was arrested by Forrester on the 19th of
July. I should say that I 'was solvent at Christ-
mas, 1853. I don't consider that I was insolvent
when I stopped payment. Of the two bills which were
in my possession, one was drawn by Mr. George Hud-
son upon Davidson and Gordon, for 1,000/. ; the other
was on Mr. Lewis for 200/. I had also some shares in
the Berlin Water-works. Some bank notes for about
320/. were also found by Forrester in my possession.
On the sth of June I drew a cheque in favour ef
" Selves" for 2,3001., and received that amount in bank
notes from Messrs. Glyn, my bankers. Of this sum
1,100/. were paid in again on the following day. I
think I lent the other 1,200/. to Davidson and Gordon,
and received it back on the 7th, and paid it again into i
the bank. On the 19th of June I drew out 1,0001.,