The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-10 00:00:00

CIVIL SIDE.

(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and a Special Jury.)
CHADWICK V. THE DEFENDER FIRE AND LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY.-ACTION AGAINST AN IN-
SURANCE COMPANY UPON A FIRE POLICY.
, This was an action upon a policy of insurance
against fire, to which the defendants pleaded that
the plaintiff had made a fraudulent claim, whereby
his rights under the policy had become forfeited.
The issue being on the defendants, Mr. Atherton,
right to
who
begin,
and
representedthe l
et
ahren
ed company,judgea claimed theecided in his
favour. _ _

Mr. Atherton proceeded to explain at some length
the circumstances of the case and the grounds upon
which the defence rested. The plaintiff was a
cabinet-maker residing and carrying on business at
59, Great Ancoats-street, Manchester, and had
effected a policy of insurance for the sum of £3OO
with the defendants, £2OO of which was apportioned
to the stock, £B5 to the furniture, and £l5 to the
fittings and fixtures. Oti the morning of the 10th
i
Sept. last a fire broke out n the plaintiff's premises,
and it was in respect to the property destroyed by
this fire that the. present action arose, which the
defendants felt it incumbent upon them to resist as
dishonest and fraudulent. By the conditions of
the policy, in the event of loss ordamage, an authen-
ticated claim was to be sent in within a given
time, and "if there were any fraud in the claim
made for such a loss or damage, or any false de-
claring in respect thereof," all claims arising under
the policy were to be forfeited. The claim sent in
to the defendants, in compliance with this stipula-
tion, amounted to £373 9s. 6d., out of which he
claimed £235 13s. 6d. for stock in trade, £l2O. for
household furniture and wearing apparel, and for
fixtures and fittings £l6 16s. Mr. Atherton pro-
ceeded to explain the grounds upon which the de-
fendants, or rather the Leeds and Yorkshire Insu-

rance Company, to which company the policy had
-beefi transferred, had come to the conclusion that

the claim was very grossly exaggerated, and that
nothing approaching the amount of property
alleged to have been destroyed by the fire could
possibly have been upon the premises. The points
upon which the learned counsel dwelt were the
shortness of the time during which the conflava-
tion lasted, the disproportion between the limited
dimensions of the shop and the number of costly
articles alleged to have been contained in it ; the
very limited extent to which the premises them-
selves had suffered ; the fact that the staircase
under which the plaintiff had said there was a large
chest of drawers containing the wearing apparel of
the family, for the destruction of which a large
claim had been made against the company, was in
reality very little injured ; the very trifling remains
of metal of any description which had been found
after the fire, compared with that which was gene-
rally
discovered after a destructive fire, and which
might naturally be expected to be found if the pre-
mises had actually contained the articles set forth
by the plaintiff in his detailed claim ; the proof
afforded by some of the plaintiff's papers which had
been found that he had been carrying on a very
small business ; the fact that so recently as June
last he had been compelled to submit to a distress
levied for poor's-rates, and, although the amount
was small, he had to pay it in instalments ; that
he had sent in a claim in which wearing apparel
had figured for the sum of £6B ls., the whole of
which, with the exception of a small quantity,worth
about £l2, was described as having been new ; the
discovery by the police that some of the most valu-
able articles of dress, which had been also included
in the claim, had not been injured at all by the fire
but were in the hands of pawnbrokers, and the im-
probability that such valuable property as that
specified in the claim could be in the possesssion of
the plaintiff, who was put to such extreme shifts as
to be .compelled to pledge articles of dress. The
defendants being convinced, said Mr. Atherton,
after the most minute and careful inquiry, that a
gross fraud had been attempted to be perpetrated
upon them, they consideredit their imperative duty
to resist the present action, and to lay all the facts
before the jury for their consideration and decision.
The case was not concluded when our parcel was