Year: 1860

llai.i6auiiLu -. ! Statev Charles Wrighk -Information for burn ing buildings of Messrs Doolittleof Barkhamsted on the night of the 9th of April. Three witness l es testified to the confession of Wright that he burnt the buildings for reconsideration, and ex hibited rollsof bank notes as evidence that the reconsideration had been paid, but the jury thought there was not sufficient evidence that the burn ing was the work of an incendiary, or that the witnesses for the State who testified to the con fession were too seedy a tribe to be believed, and returned verdict of not guilty For the St te Sedgwick and Bidwell for the prisoner Hickox and G. M. Woodruff.

 Stute v Lorrin Day.-Ihe prisoner, who is to serve nine years in state prisons on former con- victions plead guilty to two informations for burglary and theft and was sentenced to further service of three years -.

 The Jury have been dismissed, and Court cases are on trial.

 The following interesting insurance case was tried before Judge Park at the present session of the Superior Court 1He Wood5my .Sacings Bank aud Building Association V. TAe l OCNt6F O(IN HOc uNu 1ufOENC 1NSNTuHCC CO., and is of much importance to the community. as insurance of property is now so universal, and the disposition of some companies to avoid pay ing losses by some "quip or quibble" is so invete- rate.

 Before August 1851 the Savings Bank held mortgage of S2S00 on a wheel factory located in Naugatuck. It was the duty of the mortgagors by their agreement, to keep the premises insured for the benefit of the Bank. At the latter date the former policy had expired, and the mortgag- ors, Smith, Beecher X Beers, had failed, and were under assignment. There were various other in- terests in the property, by mortgage, and other wise, some of them conflicting interests, and suits were pending to determine them. At this time no body could tell, with certainty, how the title stood.

 In this state of affairs the Savings Bank wish ed, at its own expense. to insure it's own mort gage interest in the premises, that interest being undisputed. A sub-agent of the Insurance Com pany applied to the agent of the Bank to insure the property. The Bank agent frankly told him, that the title to the premises was in dispute, the parties in bankruptcy and the building locked up, and only used as storehouse, as he sup posed; that he did not know anything about the title, or circumstances of the property and he wished the insurance agent to go and look at the property, examine title and every thing else to his satisfaction, and bring him a valid policy of insurance and he would pay the premium. The agent of the Company, Mir. Parsons of New Ha- ven, accordingly did go and examine the premls- es and the state of the title to his satisfaction, and decided to insure the Bank interest in the name of Smith, Beecher & Beers, the original owners at the date of the mortgage, making the policy, on the face of it, payable in of loss to the Savings Bank" The policy was forward ed by the agent to the agent of the Savings Bank, and the premium duly paid, said Smith. Beecher Beers knowing nothing about the transaction. At the time of the delire,.y of the policy to the Bank agent the application for the insurance was handed to the latter to be signed in blank. He signed it in blank the insurance agent filled it up as he chose returned it to his Company, and the Bank officers never saw it till It was produced on trial under notice from the plaintiff. Some of the answers thus filled in by their own agent were not strictly true. After issuing this policy the agent of the Insurance Company, the defendant in this case, took fur ther risk of Sl 200 on the same property in an- other company, for which he was also agent, and he did not inform the defendant that he had so taken another policy on the same property, but on different interest in it.

 The plaintiff offered parol testimony to prove that the Insurance Company agreed to insure the mortgage interest in the name of Smith, Beecher < Beers, the original mortgagors, and that the application was signed in blank, and filled up by the Company's own agent after the issuing of the policy, and the payment of the pre- mun. To the admission of this evidence the defendant objected on the ground that it would vary, or contradict written contract. But the Court admitted it for the sole purpose of show ing that the parties agreed to use this name, to insure the Bank interest The defendant also could not recover because some of the answers III the appncatlOn were not true, put tue Court instructed the jury, that if they found that the application was signed in blank by the Bank .ent with authority to the insurance agent to fill it up in accordance with the facts as he found them by his examination, then the Bank would not be liable for any error, or false statement i'll it. The Court also ruled that to constitute double insurance to avoid a policy the second policy must be on the same interest as first policy, and that a subsequentinsurance on anotier interest in the same property is not double in surance.

 Verdict for the plaintiff to recover s3,O60 and costs.

 Cothren and Kellogg for plaintiff

 C. R. Chapman and Hubbard for defendant.

 The case will, of course, be carried to the Su- prsme Court.

 1 NEWS OF. THE WEEK.

 THE NATIONAL CONVENTION of the Democrats has still been the absorbing topic of the week Or, it has shared in the interest only with the Prize Fight. And precious row they have both been Up to the end of last week, noth-