The Sun. — 1863-09-05 (London, England)

THE MALTON TREASURE TROVE.—It will be remembered that a few months ago a deposit of silver coins of Edward I. and 111. was found in an old horn, at Malton. A claim to them was put in on the part of the Crown as treasure trove, and the coins were forwarded to the Treasury, with a view to deposit them in the British Museum. A plan for their local distribution was also suggested by the previous owner, or bolder, and it is at length ordered by the Lords of the Treasury that the coins be returned to Melton, with permission on the part of her Majesty for the holder to dispose of them as he sees proper. A portion is destined for the Yorkshire Museum; the rest for private collections.  The Great Campden House Case.  (From the Law limes of to•day.)  The great Insurance case has ended in a verdict for the plaintiff. At the close of the examination of Mr. Woolley, it was manifest that such must be the issue. He told a plain story, not improbable in itself, and he was wholly unshaken on cross-examination. Unless the case of the insurance offices was very much stronger upon their briefs than it came ont on the evidence, it is difficult to imagine how their legal advisers could have recommended such a defence upon such slender materials. They should have known that nothing short of the clearest proof would have sufficed to secure a verdict, where the defence rested upon a charge so serious. The jury would not have been justified in finding for the offices upon any case less than that upon which they wovld have convicted plaintiff' of arson and attempt to murder, had he been on his trial for those crimes. In fact, save for the consequences, he was in the same plight as if he had stood in the dock ; his character was equally at stake. A verdict against hail would have been virtually a conviction for arson. Some of the newspapers have been loud in reproaches of the companies for resisting the Claim- It was certainly must unwise to do so, unless they had been armed with very much stronger proof of the asserted crime. But we must except to the dangerous doctrine put forward by the limes, that policies of insurance should be excepted from the law of fraud, and that the offices should pay them under any circumstances, save in the case of arson in fire policies and of murder or suicide in life policies. Baron Bramwell refuted the first fallacy in his clear and able summing up of the case, in which not merely did he recognise the right of insurance offices to resist fraud—or that which they believe to be fraud—bat he pointed out the danger to the community if they were not to do so. " Consider," he said, " the consequences that must ensue if the companies were to say, ' We will pay claims which we believe have originated in fraud rather than discredit ourselves with the publie; Gentleman, if they were to take that course it would speedily come to this, that no man would be safe in his bed for fear lest bis neighbour, certain of impunity, might set fire to his house in order to defraud an insurance company. It would be a downright iniquity if offices were to pay claims which they believe have arisen out of crime. It would render it necessary that the matter should be taken out of their hands and intrusted to some office on the part of the public. It is an undoubted fact that life and fire insurances have been converted into a means and motive of crime."  The principle so broadly asserted by the .Times goes to this—that if by any amount of fraud, by false statements, by concealment of facts, by personation, or any of the many other tricks by which insurance offices are daily imposed upon, and which no vigilance on their parts can possibly detect by anticipation, nor until the event happens that reveals the fraud, a rogue succeeds in obtaining a policy, he is to enjoy the fruits of his crime and triumph in his wickedness. This would be indeed to offer a premium for fraud, and to propagate crime by that surest of all promoters of it, the example of successful knavery. It is the duty of companies no less than of individuals to resist fraud whenever they have just reason to believe that a fraud has been committed. A fire insurance office is bound to do so for the reason pointed out by Baron Bramwell, that, if it were not to resist it, every man's life and property would be in jeopardy from his neighbour, whom poverty and impunity might tempt to save himself from ruin by robbing the insurance office. A life insurance office is equally bound to resist a fraud, because the losses caused by the fraud must fall upon the honest insurers, and if the offices did not resist, frauds would certainly multiply until the innocent policy-holders were deprived of all their gains. The resistance to Mr. Woolley's claim was a grave mistake, but it affords no argument for the doctrine that has been founded upon it by the Times and some other journals, that insurances offices should submit to any frauds save those accomplished by arson, murder, or suicide.