Perth Amboy evening news., 1903-07-24
DID
mot AGREE.
George SklenCher's S Suit Against
Fire Insurance Association
Closed Yesterday.
JURY CONSIDERED LONG.
Sbecial TO tie Evening Meas.

NGtSRf ~ f|fc L-Cc/hbffS AAc ~
New Brunswick. July 24:-The jury
in the George Sklencher suit against
the Fire Insurance Association, of
Philadelphia, disagreed They were
out six hours 1t took six days to try
the case and the time spent was use
less. Judge Oowenhoven, Sklencher' S
attorney, says he will apply to the
Court of Pardons to have his client
liberated, claiming there is now some
doubt as to his setting fire to his
building.
The sixth day of the trial commenced
yesterday morning with the summing
up of the case. John S. Voorhees,,
for the defendant company, opened
the summing up. which was limited
to three quarters of an hour on each
side. He argued that the man fired
his own building for the purpose Of
getting the insurance and that in so
doing he vitiated his claim against
the insurance company under the pro-
visions of the contract. 1t was also
held by the defense that the goods he
claimed insurance on were not in the
building at the time of the fire.
Judge Cowenhoven, for the plaintiff,
declared that this man had been
bounded by an insurance agent to take
out policy, and upon his finally
paying 1915 for the policy, the COM
pany was now trying to cheat him out
of it. He said his client was a poor
man and did not know hardly what
insurance was.
He made much of the fact that
Sklencher was convicted of arson upon
evidence produced by Prosecutor
Voorhees,, who was now counsel for
the defendant COMPANY, and that the
State of New Jersey, with all their
power. backed by the insurance com
pany. with their millions, some of
which, he alleged, they had obtain
in the same way they were trying ~
victimize Sklencher, had combined to
land Sklencher in State prison, where
the insurance company believed they
would have no trouble with him over
the payment of the insurance.
The friends of Sklencher, had, how
ever, come to his rescue. and, despite
the fact that he was in prison, he had
been able to put his case before the
jury. All that he now desired was
verdict in his favor. He did not
claim or want the whole $500, or $400
or $500. All he wanted was justice,
and verdict for him would be a big
step toward liberty from prison, where
he was now unjustly held, as he was
not guilty of starting the fire, though
convicted of the crime.
Judge Schenck, on charging the
jury, said they were not to consider
the fact that Sklenoher was convicted,
of arson except as it applied to his
credibility while on the witness stand.
He had sought In this case to give
the plaintiff every opportunity to pro-
duce all the evidence possible in order
that he might have every aid for his
case.
He charged the jury that if any of
the goods in the shop were stolen be-
fore or after the fire they could not
be recovered for under the policy. He
directed the jury to first find what
Sklencher' actual loss was by fire,
water or breakage. If, however, they
came to the conclusion that he fired
the building, or caused it to be fired,
there could be no verdict in his be-
half. There seemed to be no dispute
he said, that the building was fred
by someone, and if they found that
the plaintiff was connected with this
crime their verdict should be for the
defendant.