The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-13 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL, DEC. 11.

(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and a Special Jury.)
CHADWICK V. THE DEFENDER FIRE AND LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY.

Mr. Monck, Q.C., and Mr. Joseph Fernley ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Atherton, Q.C.,
and Mr. James Fernley for the defendant.
The action was brought to recover a sum of
money alleged to be due on a policy against fire
effected by the plaintiff with the defendants. Upon
the part of the defendants it was averred that the
plaintiff had made a fraudulent representation,
whereby his right under the policy had become
forfeited.

Several policemen and firemen were examined,
whose evidence went to show that about two o'clock
in the morning of the 10th September last the
plaintiff's premises were secure ; that an alarm of
fire was given in about half an hour afterwards,
and that the fire engines were on the spot about
three o'clock ; that the flames ceased to be observ-
able in little more than three minutes after the
arrival of the engines ; and that the fire was com-
pletely extinguished and the engines withdrawn
from operation before four o'clock.
Mr. Cairns, the agent of the company, proved
that the front bedroom above the shop was very
slightly injured by the fire.
Mr. Richardson, the architect, and Mr. Hancock
surveyor to the office, spoke also as to the condition
of the premises, and that the remains of wearing
apparel found under the staircase bore no propor-
tion to the quantity alleged to have been destroyed.
Various other witnesses were also called, who stated
that they had riddled and examined the ashes and
debris of the fire, and gave a minute detail of the
various metal articles which were found in the dif-
ferent parts or the premises, showing that there
was no proportion between the goods alleged to
have .'been destroyed and the remains discovered;
and that there appeared to be no ashes of the large
chest containing clothes, which had been described
by the plaintiff as having been consumed under the
staircase. _ _ _

Mr. Monk, addressed the jury for plaintiff, who
in spite of a very long and searching cross-exami-
nation by Mr. Atherton, proved, with various other
witnesses, that there was a large quantity of furni-
ture in the shop at the time of the fire, and that it
was so crowded up that there was scarcely room to
pass up and down the shop.
At this moment a juror interposing, said, May
I be allowed to ask you, Mr. Monk, if you think it
necessary to address the Court again ?
The learned counsel glanced inquiringly at his
Lordship, who said to the jury,—This is a question,
gentlemen, pre-eminently for you to determine.
The defendants, to succeed, must make out that
this claim is a fraudulent one ; and if you are satis-
fied that that has not been made out without Mr.
Monk addressing you—
The foreman—We are, probably, all perfectly
satisfied about it.
A juror—We have written out our verdict to that
effect. _

His Lordship said, he might tell them the learned
counsel for the defendants was also entitled to ad-
dress them again.
Another juror intimated that they were quite
satisfied, unless Mr. Atherton had other evidence
adduce to rebut that which had been adduced for
the plaintiff.
Mr. Atherton intimated that, under the circum-
stauces, it would clearly be unnecessary for him to
address the jury.
His Lordship said, a claim must be a fraudulent
one to disentitle a plaintiff to recover ; and if the
jury had so far made up their minds that this was
not a fraudulent claim, it was not necessary to pro-
ceed further.

The Jury—Perfectly so.
His Lordship said, the directors of an insurance
company were bound, in duty to the public, not to
encourage fraudulent claims, for the very next time
life was lost by wilful arson it might be thought it
was owing to their undue acquiescence in unjust
claims,

Mr. Monk said he thought it right to say that
the directors, from what had been told to them, had
no other course before them than to institute an
inquiry.
The .Tury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for
£3OO, being the full amount of the policy ; and
acquitted him of fraud or any intent to defraud.
His Lordship then discharged the special jury
complimenting them upon the patience and judg.
ment they had given.
The case occupied the Court the greater part of
two days.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
William Procter, William East, and Jane East
were indicted for an assault and robbery of James
Mackay at Preston on the 30th of September last.
Mr. Assheton Crosse prosecuted, and Mr. Higgin
defended the prisoner.
From the statement of the learned counsel, it
appeared that the prosecutor, a private in the 22d
Re bcriment, stationed at Preston, was in company with
a fellow-soldier named Wilson at a public-house in
Preston upon the night in question, and while there
the two soldiers were joined by a woman named
Ashworth, and after paying for some ale Mackay
counted his money, which he put carefully into his
pocket. At this time the three prisoners were also
in the house, and observed what Mackay was
doing. The two soldiers and the woman left the
house, and after calling at another public-house were
proceeding along the street when they were met
by the three prisoners, one of whom, East, im-
mediately rushed at Mackay, knocked him down,
and kicked him violently, and while down the other
prisoner, Procter, fell upon him, unbuckled his belt
and tearing away his jacket and shoulder strap, took
from his waistcoat pocket 2os. The prisoners then
ran away. These facts were mainly attested
by various witnesses, some of whom, however, gaVe
rather a different account of the transaction.

His Lordship hereupon interposed, and asked
the jury if they were satisfied upon the case which
had been presented to them, upon which all of the

jurymen, with one exception, stated that they were
not. In consequence of which
Mr. Higgin addressed the jury for the prisoners
—who were all acquitted.
His Lordship then said he should direct the pri-
soners to be indicted for an assault.
Richard Griffin and James Griffin were indicted
for feloniously cutting and wounding Thomas
Welsby, at Ditton, on the 3d Oct. last.
Mr. Assheton Cross and Mr. Scott prosecuted,
and Mr. J. Fernley defended, the prisoners.
The prosecutor and his uncle had been spending
the Sunday evening at a beerhouse, but left sober..
They had proceeded some distance towards home
when they met a man with a white slop on. He
was the prisoner James. He said " Good night."
Thomas Washy answered " Good night," and
instantly afterwards he was knocked down, and
his uncle also. Thomas tried to get away, but was
pursued and again ill-used. He was eventually',
left near a gate, where he was afterwards found
so covered with blood that he was only identif ed
by his clothes. William Welsby, the uncle,
managed to walk to a farm, where, singular,l
enough, the prisoners worked as servants. I‘l,-***
Swift, the occupier, on seeing him rendered him
every assistance, at the same time identifying
Richard Griffin. :About 4 o'clock in the same
night both the men, who slept in 'the. granary,
were taken into custody, blood being found on
various parts of their dress. A third man was also
present who wore a white slop, and who has since
not been found. There were two large pools of
blood discovered on the road near where the en-
counter had taken place, and various admissions
were made by the prisoners to the .police constables
as to their having been at a beershop that night in
that immediate neighbourhood, which they had left
in a state of intoxication. Upon the part of the
prisoners, it was urged that no -direct proof had
been given as to their identity.
The learned judge summed up with much care
and at great length, and the jury, after retiring for
some time, found the prisoners guilty of unlawfully
wounding.
His lordship, in a very impressive address, sen-
' tented each of the prisoners to 18 months' imprison=
. ment with hard labour, adding that it was
fortunate circumstance the prosecutor's life wee
preserved, otherwise they would most assuredly
have been guilty of murder.