The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-07-07 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, FRIDAY, JULY 3

( Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Lord DEN-
MAN and a Special Jziry.)
—LONG V. THE CORPORATION OF

EXTRAORDINARY CASE

THE. LONDON ASSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. Platt, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Chambers, conducted
the case of the plaintiff; and the Attorney-General, Sir W.
Follett, and Mr. Hogging, that of the defendants.
This was an action upon a policy of assurance for £5OO,
effected on household goods, &c., in the house of Mrs. Long,
situate at Lincomb and Widcombe, near Bath. To this the
defendants pleaded, first, that the plaintiff was not interested
in the goods • secondly, that the goods were not consumed
by fire ; thirdly, that the conditions of the policy, that the
plaintiff should deliver in an accurate account of the loss, had
not been complied with ; fourthly, that the alleged damage
and loss were not duly proved ; fifthly, that the plaintiff wil-
fully and maliciously had set the dwelling house on fire.
The evidence for the plaintiff went to prove that the furni-
ture, &c., were worth £3OO or £4OO, and that the dwelling
house was not maliciously set on fire. After the plaintiff's
witnesses had been examined,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then addressed the jury for the
defendants, and observed that the tire-office had deemed it
its duty to resist this claim, as it believed that the fire had
been wilfully caused, and that the claim was fraudulent.
Evidence to this effect was then adduced.
Mr. PLATT then addressed the jury upon the whole evi-
dence, stating that he appeared before them for the widow
and orphan, and to support her just claim against this office,
and he implored them, as they respected their own charac-
ters as honest men, to throw their shield around her, and
prevent the foul attempt which was made to render her infa-
mous for ever, by delivering their verdict upon all the pleas
for the plaintiff for £5OO. The sum was very large, but the
stake was greater than the money, because he would ask
them, was it possible that this lady could appear in society
again if they should find a verdict against her ? The burden
was not on him, but on the office ; they had to make out
fraud. They said, " You have been guilty of fraud in the
first place, of arson in the second." They must not act
upon suspicion ; but must have convincing proof of both
one and the other before they could find a verdict in favour
of the defendant.

Lord DENMAN then proceeded to sum up the case to the
jury. After stating the nature of the action, his lordship
said that the important plea, and indeed the only issue, was
the charge that the plaintiff had wilfully set fire to the house,
and fraudulently caused the goods to be burnt. In consider-
ing the case a good deal would depend on the value of the
goods in the house ; if they were of much less value than the
sum for which they were insured, that would give a clear
motive for the destruction. The question was whether the
lady was guilty of the gross and infamous crime with which
she was charged ; if the facts made it perfectly convincing to
them that she was morally responsible, they would give their
verdict for the defendants.

At seven o'clock the jury retired, and at five minutes past
eight they came into court and said they wished to ask his
Lordship this question—whether a less sum than that claimed
would be received ?

Lord DENMAN said, it was competent for them to give
any sum.

The Jury.—Then, my Lord, our verdict will be for the
plaintiff—Damages £lOO.
There were three special jurors, and nine talesmen.
The case has excited universal interest.