Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1880-12-02

aniInus of the paper. Here Is matter which
was prepared by the representatives of the
other insurance companies Of Wilmington il
Is one OF the publications in EVERY EVENING
the first article after the reorganization which
| WAS put In evidence by the plaintiff, shows
that it was suggested by an extract from the
Baltimore UnderlDriter. upon which 1t ia
comment four days after that We come To
the publication of this report, which Ia the
foundation and text and substance of every
thing that has appeared since that time. Even
upon the bare proof that the damage sus
tanned was from the attacks in EVERY EVENING.
would it not be competent to show everything
published in EVERY EVENING on the subject?
But there il another ground, 1t ID well
settled principle of law that paper referred
to in an article alleged to be hbelous may be
read to the jury. The papers called out to
show malice are those Of November 26th and
9th, 1878. On November 25th this report
was published, and the article Of November
26th refers directly to this report. | make
| the offer either of the original report or the
report as published in the EVERY EVENING.
Judge Wootten did not think this report
admissible for the reason that 1t would be
| making testimony of the opinions of others
| who were not on oath.
Chief Justice Comegys said that in cases of
this kind when one paper is referred to in
| another and the latter becomes evidence the
former becomes evidence also as explanatory
of what was meant by the subsequent publica-
| ton.
Mr.. Lore argued that the defendant ia en-
titled to have the whole Of an alleged libellous
article placed IN evidence, but that he cannot
| so beyond that.
After comforting with his associates, Chief
| Justice Comegys announced that majority
of the Court objected TO the admission OF the
paper.
| exception to this ruling.
| Examination result ed-The conclusion al
which we arrived was that. in our opinion
| interrupted by Mr.. Lore); the conclusion the
| committee reached and which was Expressed
| III the report to the companies was that the
Delaware Stats Fire and Marine Insurance
| Company was unsound and unsafe and utterly
| unworthy of the confidence or the co.opera-
ton of tile respective companies. That re-
port was published. in whole or in part in
| different newspapers, | remember seeing il
| published IN part III an insurance journal and
commented on III detail II was published in
the EVERY EVENING Ollie shown and examined)
| Of Monday, November 25th, 1878; it VIVA
| published in the delaware Tribune (paper
| shown OF November 18th, 1873 we found
| that mainly the assets of the company were
| represented by mortgages they held but
little real estate, and had but little invested in
| bank stocks and securities of that class we
| addressed ourselves tn the work of ASCERTAIN
record then we ascertained the value of the
property on which the mortgages were alleged
| to be hxed to that end We employed counsel
| III the various places over the country where
| the property was alleged to be placed the
| instructions were to the special counsel to be
thorough and explicit we received from
| them yuuminous matter, their reports were
quite full.
| "Are you acquainted with what has boon
| the reputation of this company for financial
| soundness, in the city of Wilmington, during
the years 1877, 1878 and the early part Of
| 1892"
al am generally. As all insurance COM
pany their policies are regarded AZ of no kind
or sort of value whatever"
"liow much insurance is carried by the
| Pussy Il Jones CompanyYn
1--WE have about sl5OO00 of fire insurance"
would you, as business man, accept
| policy from that companyW
Objected to, and objection overruled
al would not ; | refused one"
"As result of the report You have referred
| to, does or does not the Farmers Mutual In
surance Company write risks with this COM
pany2"
cit does not; it has no business association
with it ; 1t refused to co-lnsure with it,"
Cross-examined-I do not remember the
| name of the Insurance journal in which |
saw part of this report the Farmers Fire
Insurance Company did not authorize the
publication of the report ; they never assented
to this publication 1t was published without
their assent don't know by whose authority
1t was published we employed Mr. Bates to
work this investigation up in this county to
the best of my knowledge he was and ia q
stockholder i'll the Every Evening
Publishing Company am q
stakeholder in the Every Evening
Publishing Company we employed the } ,, -
firm of Flemming X McCarroll in Harb' ,nr@
to conduct the investigation i'll that ~ ct;n,,e.
to co-insure MEANS for two or more ir .nra,,ad
companies to take risks upon the mo ,,r,,,
erty under the same conditions. p''p
Witness was asked that in tbe eve,t 90
loss OF S4,OOO accruing and the loss he;no
covered by policies of SO. 200 each in two
different companies, one Sound and the other
unsound what would be- the result
ing pohcy peihe for greater amount
than the loss, If each company stands 10 The
work and pays Its share of course the loss IL
equally divided in the event of one company
being unsound the question occurs whether
Jury may not require the sound company 10
pay more thah It's share as IL general rule
insurance companies are expected to be sound
"n i 'aeh company N expected to pay its pro
| Fdd among Insurance people GENERALLY this
Is tle rule tins also depends upuu how th,,
Pohcles are drawn know where the Farmers
hutuRl has been very unjustly handled by
Juries the Farmers Mutual to NV knnylnd,e
mover cn-lllSureu with company that did not
Pay itH SNARE oil lOHses don know Il single
CASE where the Farmers Mutual Insured with
any ueihultlhB company | cannot give nm
Instance where W. have paid more than nur
pTO fdtd share the committee WAS apullnt.d
some time between July. 1871, aud the early
months ~ 1878 cannot locate the dute
more definitely 1t was after the company
el'he 10 wilmington tue committee met ut
various places Whereverit mig lat he convenient,
IA M .s.p Al
M 10 whether he had ever personally ex-
aihihed the assets Of the COMPANY. the lar ds
Wy "nich me mortgages were executed the
olilclal records OF the mortgages the ~ anti
Sor. i"ieS, etc. to which he replied that h..
mad made no personal examination. nf IL
things but acted upon the report. mad, bv
the agents employed by the ct,nmitteo nnS
transcripts Oi records obtained oy them,
Examination continued After th. nnblica-
non non Vi me report of the COMMITTEES i'm the.
EVLRY EVENING, there was nm invitstinn
oAienuea To the comm'.teo through the news-
l''puts 70 10 10 Ihe tompaly'S office and
eNaihlhe Its secNitles; | did not 20. / nevnr
saw any OF the real estste ar secnriiisa.
sppke ~ them from their own statement as
luu-"heui We found very little, III the assets.
s st was solvent; we did not find William
brights note, except his premium note. and
tna. we uld not regard as the property Of the
company.
MIR. Whitley here read and calIed tha
attention of witness to a clause in the Nv
laws OF the Farmers Mutual Insurance Com
paaH which, in cases of co-iusurauce. mo-
niolts that company from paying any more
than Its share of lis loss
heulrect-''State whether in making this
examination into the affairs of this piaintifr
or III naking your report as Il result of that
examination, you had any other motive than
70 project tue company which you repre-
sented?' -ep'o
The question was objected to bnt after
argument admitted the Court holding that
Tue prosecution had sought by Inference TO
lhPute another motive and the witness had
y right to clear himself ef such an imnnta-
ton.
Witness-"I had no motive whatever.
except to serve the Farmers Mutual Insnr'
ance Company" -'i''"
what did Mr.. Bates dol"
ne submitted to me only the result of bis
examination into the records, nothing else !:
prepared the report"
MIR. RICHARDSON'S TESTIMONY.
George Richardson, ailirmed-Am :. ,,,,,.
Der OF the board of directors of tse NV
castle County Mutual Insurance Camnauy
nave been Tor about 80 years am Chairman
Oh committees on Accounts and Insurance. was
member OF the committee which made mn
examination INTO the condition of the D. Il
T. ana NJ l. Co. onr Board was asked M,
appoint committee to act in conjunction,
WIN other companies in investigating a state
nheht punished by the ID. =. Il. 4 NJ. 90 =.
We eLlployed counsel and upon that informa-
ton made our report we came To the cn,,-
clusion that the company WAS mi a ao,,',l
reliable gOnOaIiy wa nbto,nn1 - 'S'.hut