The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-27 00:00:00

LOGAN V. WINEHOLT.

Sir EDWARD SUGDRN resumed his arguments on the
part-heard appeal, which the Learned Gentleman had rot
concluded when our reporter left.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury,
at Guildhall.
FRIEDLANDER V. THE LONDON ASSURANCE COMPANY.

This was an action by the plaintiff, Benjamin Hayman
Friedlander, a jeweller, late of No. 27, Earl-street, Fins-
bury-square, to recover the amount of a policy of insu-
rance effected with the defendants for 1,000/., upon the
stock in trade and furniture of the plaintiff, which bad
been destroyed by fire. There were several pleas to the
declaration, charging fraud, that the premises were wil-
fully set en fire,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr.
HotiT), in stating the circumstances attending.the fire, and
the large quantity of goods thereby destroyed, said he
would be able to prove, not only that the fire was acci-
dental, but that the plaintiff 'a stock was worth 1,7001.,
exceeding the amount of the policy by 7001.
Henry Friedlander, a son of the plaintiff, deposed that
his father occupied two rooms on the ground floor and two
on the first floor; the back room on each floor was used
as a warehouse. Other persons, named Worrae and
Smith, lived in the other parts of the house. In
December, 1229, M". Sabine, the Surveyor to the Lon-
don Assurance Company, came and surveyed the premises
and stock. On the 16th of May, 1830, the plaintiff
went to Birmingham, at which time there were in
the two warehouses cases, drawers, &c., contain-
ing large quantities of jewellery, plated goods, japanned
goods, silks, and lace. Besides which, the household fur-
niture was worth from eighty to one hundred pounds.
The plaintiff 's assistant, Nathan, was left in charge of the
place with the witness. On the night of the 25th of
May witness and Nathan supped together i❑ the front
room of the ground floor ; after which Nathan smoked his
pipe, then took the candle, and locked up the back ware-
house, and brought witness the key. There was no fire in
the room. About eleven o'clock they went to bed toge•
ther, in the first floor front room. About half-past two
o'clock in the morning witness was awoke by Nathan pul-
ling his hair, and telling him the house was on fire; he
jumped up, took his clothes, and ran down stairs in to the
street, on his way to which he saw a light under the
warehouse door. He met a person named Chopping at
the doer, and they ran to the engine-house, but it was
locked ; coming back they met an occasional porter of
the plaintiff's, named Duke, who was also a watchman,
and who had the keys of the engine-house ; they then
took the engine to the premises, which were in one com-
plete blaze. They then went for the turncock, but it Iva,
some time before they could get water. It was about an
hour before any ether engines arrived. The stock in
trade, hooks, the policy of insurance, and nearly all the
papers were destroyed. Nathan that day wrote the fol-
lowing letter to the plaintiff:—" Mr. Friedlander,—You
will not do otherwise than hasten to town immediately, as
there was a fire in your house. (Signed) Nathan." The
plaintiff arrived on the evening of the 28th. The witness then
deposed to several applications at the London Assurance
Office, for the amount of the plaintiff's claim, and exami
nations before the Board of Directors, and at length the
plaintiff was told that the Board was dissatisfied in conse-
quence of his claim being too indefinite. The witness
swore that the goods enumerated in the claim were on the
premises when the fire broke out.
Cross-examined by Sir JAMES SCARLET; (with whom
was Mr. CAMEBELL)-The plaintiff's name was Fried-
lander. He had never gone by that of Hayman. Some
persons had called him by one name and some by the
other. The plaintiff had been in business at Stettin, in
Prussia, and came to this country in 1824 or 1825.
(The case is not expected to conclude to-day, as there
is an immense number of witnesses on each side.)