The Northern Daily Times. — 1853-10-29 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

LIMERICK QUARTER SESSIONS. Wright v. Wallace. It will be in the recollection of our readers that at the last quarter sessions, Mr. Richard Wallace, of George'sstreet, sued Mr. William Wright, of same street, as agent of what proved to be a " Bubble" Insurance Company, designated " The Industrial Life Assurance, and Provident Society," to recover from him the sums of £32 and £25 125., amount paid as premiums upon policies of insurance effected upon the life of a gentleman in thin neighbourhood. The evidence given upon that occasion disclosed the fact that no such company existed, and it was urged that Mr. Wright was cognizant of the fact ; but this not having been proved to the satisfaction of the court, the case was then dismissed without prejudice. It again came on for hearing yesterday, when the Assistant Barrister said it was unnecessary to examine any of the witnesses who had been produced at June sessions.  Mr. Pateman, editor of the Post Magazine, was then examined, and proved there was no such company inexistence as that which had been represented by Mr. Wright; that at the end of December, or beginning of January last, he sent copies of the Post Magazine, exposing the nature of the bubble company, to defendant, under an article headed " The Murder Out," and stated with respect to a person of the name of Deniston, who had been represented as principal of the " Industrial Life Assurance and Provident Society,", he (Deniston) was a man of no character, having been sentenced to ten years transportation for forgery at the suit of Mr. T. W. Greene. He did so for the purpose of guarding the public against the schemes of such companies. Letters of correspondence between 111 r. Wright and Mr. Denison were put in to show that Mr. Wright was imposed on by Deniston. Mr. Wright swore he believed the company to have been a bona fide one when he undertook the agency ; and that he remitted the money he got from Mr. Wallace to London, and got advices from Mr. Deniston, that the money so remitted had been received and applied to the politics of insurance which were forwarded to him for the parties to whom they were executed. Mr. Wright was cross-examined by Mr. John Gleeson. He admitted that he endeavoured to negotiate a transfer with these policies a short time:since to another company, the Hope, in London ; that he had been in London since ho heard of Deniston's character, but did not go near the street where the office was. fearing that whilst this action was pending, he might be prejudiced by so doing. The Barrister said he was glad the case had again come before him-for adjudication, fortified as it was with the additional evidence of Mr. Pateman, from which there could bo no possible doubt but that the company was a bubble company ; he would add that great credit was due to Mr. Pateman for the pains he took in exposing its fraudulent character, and in guarding the public against the schemes of its concoctors. Though there was a good deal sufficiently suspicious in the conduct of Mr. Wright to justify the statement that had been made—the evidence to-day was not calculated to alter the decision he had before given in this case. There was suspicion, not of fraud against the defendant, but gross neglect on his part in not making himself thoroughly acquainted with the company. Mr. Wright was wrong in puffing such a company through the city, in inducing respectable citizens such as Mr. Wallace and ethc,s to embark their money and lose 44. 116 worship condemned in strong terms the conduct of Mr. Wright—adding that until it could be shown he had a guilty knowledge of the nature of the transaction, he could not give a decree against him ; but there was sufficient in the conduct of Wright to justify the annoyance, trouble and expense he had been put to. And if it were in his (the Barrister's) power to make him refund the money that had been paid by Mr. Wallace he would 40 50 ; but sitting there to administer the Itvw it was enacted by the legislature, he could not, under all the circumstances, but dismiss the case on the merits against Mr. Wright.— Limerick Chronicle.