Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1877-09-04
The Loudoun Insurance Case.

IL The case OF JoED 1. DasSsH W. tDe aCS''1Ho
Fire Insurance Company, vas begun this morn
ing in the Circuit Court for the u. S, the
p!aiotiff being represented By Gen. Eppa Hun
toe, Mczsrs. Charles Lee. r. Fl. Lee aud Capt.
J. ". Foster, aud the defendant, BY Aes:rs.
II. O. CIaughtoo and Henry Heatoo. ibis
case was tried at the July term when the plain
tiff recovered judgment for $1,000, principal
ard Interest, for damages oacasiooed By the
burning Of his dry goods store at bl!ddleblrg.
Executions we're taken to the rulings Ct the
court 81 the defendant aud a motion made tor
| pew trial upon the ground Of after discovered
evidence and misdiFectons ct the court.
Mr.. Heaon opened the argument fer pew
| tria! by reading the several grounds OF the mo
tor. AID argued that MIR. Shrotf, who effected
lbe insurance, was cot the authorized agent OF
the compaoy; that Tie Conditions Of the policy
are IS much part OF the orlgIna! coot!ac: as
though they we're embraced il the body Of the
instrument. Il vas the expectation tf COUNSEL
for the defendant that matcr!a! witness iroun
Baltimore would be present at tie trial, aud 10
| this the defence vas disappointed. Mr.. Fl.
read the affidavit Ct II. Clay Ryan, Of Middle
burg, IS newly discovered e3idenca which thc
defance did pot kboW OF at the time Of the trial
Mr.. Lee asked that the couose be required
TO produce their authorities if they had any
| Course! tor the company stated that they had
n5De.
Captain J. W. Foster, cou5s:i fer BassclI, 10
opposition to the motioo, read counter sfidavits
OF the deputy sheriff of Loudoun, ". B. No.
!aud, and Captain Z B. Powell, tina. they
voui cot believe Ryan 90 oath, aad that be
is unworthy Of crsdt.
Mr.. r. II. L:e, for Basel, addressed the
court il opposition to the m1tl)1 foT Dew
trial, and said that he motion was erouoded
upon the assumption that the iastru,:ioo5 Ct
the court were erroneous. These i0stru,lioos
had been given upon review OF the whole law
aod the counsel for defendant had said they
had no other authority. The Instructions the
defendant touOd tlu't With were th1s, which
held that the conditions printed upon tie back
OF the paper, unless the attention Of the iosured
was specially directed 10 them, were no: tiol-
iog upon hin. The speaker would mainly al
dress hus.!l 20 this poiot. This policy vas
handed to the plal0uf ai.er the money WAS
paid. aud it was quastIoo whether acy
OF the c-Gdi!Gn; were part ct the co.
tract Tie conditions were spoken @! 10
the contract as bsiop annexed to tie policy.
Webster bad 6 i7eu GlieTeut 1ef!oition, aod
there was dttf=rcoca between conditions an
nexed AID those endorsed upoo the back OF the
policy. The Insurance compary had made 10
otjac:o0 70 the agency OF Sh!oI 4, none when
! the lSuraLc: vas effected or tie M0oey paid
! or q !ha ..lai Of the csu.e before the jury.
| Ties watc ooac.u led By their OVID admissions
upon tEis p.iot. At the ;f!a tie arr touui
IS question Of !.c: That hats, caps, boots ao1
shoes wsIe dry goods. aol the loss Of these
articles were Clearly co7arsd b. the words "dcS
goods. Vt all Event. i: was question 81 fac:
| upo2 which the Jury passed. aod it Was Mt
within ;iIn province o! the Judgment OF the
! C0urt IS legal Qles;i01 10 set aside the
75Tdic! upon that grouad. Authorities v:re
cited as 10 tie responsibility Of principal for
tie SOS Of the agent. At The time Of the mo-
loo tor n=T trial this Dew e7iie0ce was not
discovered, for the couasel admits that the e7i-
| daoca Was discovered afterwards. Was It the
! puIpos: Ct the Hour! TO give the parties q I0T.
| ing commission al oSeT tie c5u5try to get up
evidence 10 the case after the trial? ibis could
DOT be the case TIE cous sej bad GOT discovered
this evi1ecce before The notloo. They had made
! the m0lloo and Afterwards gone cut to look for
evidence. TIE purport Of the nem evidence is
to impeacL the testimony Of the p.aiotiff ct the
t1a! ADD ibis soF: Of cSidctce would u0t justify
the grating Of Da8 trial. The offence hal
not exhibited due dili2cnc,, and the testimony
submitted By tncm would Got ei:c: the merits
il a ueT trial Was granted.
Gen. Eopa Huu!ou, 70, Bas;eii, c0otecIcd
| tia. the motion did noi address Itself TO tie Ia.
! 71ra5c determination CT the Court. Til: was
the tribunal Of the defendants Owe saekiog, AID
much COS; aud expense had accrued - the
plaintiff, 90: ony BY the io:s IS ID. f:e. tu:
| by bang kept cut OF the Insurance. Toe no
tiou vi. made bafyr. nes tv:delc. vis dis
coTcTei, aad the motion WAS 90. based up5n
after discovered testimony. The testimony
| does %, c1mc within the rule because The de-
iendart might have obtalcei it By due diiigeuca,
aud the witnesses upon whom they rely CO.
Eerscd With the agents It the company upon
the subject OF the Gre balore the trial. They
bad GOT USED due d!lga1cs, although they had
employed counsel from the Federal city TO the
! foot oil the Bue Ridge They not ouy
bad multiplicity, but dispersion OF couo.
sci, aud one OF the witnesses upon whom
they rely was living 10 Midleburg uodar the
very nose Of one Of the counsel. aod she should
have uoitr Circumstances Of mos. ordinary
diligence b-e1 present q: the tra. Mr.. L9r.
ua1 Chancellor. who scem-d 70 have s3me sort
OF connection With the case here. INTERRUPTED
Gee. Hu0son TO protest tina! the wtoess WAS
white Tomao. and was competent uoier the
old law. Gen. H. criticised the character OF the
alleged after discovered witnesses, and showed
them to be uoder the light OF the counter az.
6iavts unworthy of belief. As 10 Shroff'
agency, that question Was closed b. the ratIG
cation Of his acts by the Comply.
The condition embraced 10 the policy that
kerosene was lot TO be used By theiosured vas
Imperative AID Intellectual unless the kooR.
edge Of the stipulation was brought home to
the Insured at the time Of ctfectiog the 6sus.
ance, and the evidence was clear aud uocou.ra
dicted that the plaintiff had 60 knowledge Of
the existence of the conditloo endorsed Oh the
back of the policy. The case Of Wilson,
22i Grsttau. was urged as az analogous
case. Gen. II. claimed that if the condition
ever c1!ste! IS valid it had been waived By the |
Company 10 this case.
Another ground Of the notioa was that boots
aud shoes were not dry goods" and, there
fore, not covered By the Insurance. The
speaker had consulted merchants upon the |
subject, aud these articles be iouod c!assad M.
der that head, when applied to country stores, |
consequently the argument of the copfusio b. |