you are not to give vindictive damages.

The Jury, retiring for a short time, found.-Damages, 1,500%.

GLASGOW JURY-COURT, Oct. 8.

Drew v. the London Imperial Fire Company. This case excited peculiar interest, and the Court was crowded to excess, in consequence of the defenders being a London Insurance Company. The case had been litigated for some time before the Court of Session, who directed the following issues to be tried, viz. 1st, Is there reasonable evidence in terms of the policy of insurance, of the plaintiff having sustained a loss on the premises, in Rottenrow-street, North-west Church, parish Glasgow, and on the stock and utensils therein contained, by the fire which took place on the evening of the 25th of December, 1816, or about that time, to the extent of the sum insured by the policy? 2ndly, Did the pursuer in his claims commit any fraud, perjury, or affirmation in support thereof, with intent to defraud the Company?

Francis Jeffray, Esq. opened the case. He stated, that, in 1813, Mr. Drew the plaintiff, a respectable tin-manufacturer, in Glasgow, effected an insurance in the London Imperial Insuranceoffice Company, and regularly paid the premiums. The particulars of this policy were, 200, for the building, and 5501. for the stock in trade and other utensils, as a japanner and pewterer, making in all 7501. On Christmasday, 1816, the premises were

destroyed; and as no part of the house was at all occupied as a dwelling-house, and the fire had taken place after the men had left their work, the devouring element gained such power before being discovered, that the house was consumed, and very little, indeed nothing at all, of the stock was saved. Soon after this, a person, by order of the plaintiff, made application to Mr. Bogle, in Hutcheson-street, Glasgow, agent for the company, for payment of the amount of the policy, the plaintiff being unwell at the time. Mr. Drew did not object to give a statement of the loss, as Mr. Bogle, the agent for the London Company, required. The person who built the house, and Mr. McCallum, a measurer (surveyor), both gave in valuations of the tenement, the former at more than 220/., the latter at 2761. In addition to this, Mr. Drew gave in his account of loss, to which he made affidavit, and which was in toto 6751. In making this affidavit he never was told by the agent, that this prevented him correcting any mistakes, though he had sworn to its accuracy, " errors excepted." He was afterwards told a more specific account was necessary, and he gave it. Between the two there was this difference, that there were four dozen more tea-trays in the first account than were in the second, but this was more than made up by a number of clock dial-plates, showing thereby that he had not the slightest intention to rob or defraud the Company. They, however, disputed the account, on which the pursuer (plaintiff)

begged

begged that, according to their own terms of insurance, the case might be referred to arbitration; but to his astonishment, he was told that this part of the policy was not applicable to his case. The Company, before examining a single witness in the employment of Mr. Drew, set up a defence against the plaintiff. "The dangling and pragmatical fellows of cockneys, who pry into the affairs of every public office," had thought this was a very good opportunity of bringing this poor Scotsman into a fine scrape, in consequence of his correcting his accounts. In conclusion, the learned Counsel contended that the letter sent from the Imperial Fire Office to the plaintiff in Glasgow, was infinitely more insolent than any thing which had ever issued from the Imperial Cabinet of St. Cloud.

The evidence was then adduced in support of the pursuer's claim, by which it appeared that his whole error consisted in mistaking four dozen of clock dial plates for four dozen of trays. On this mistake the London Imperial Insurance Office pleaded that he had been guilty of false swearing, and was therefore not entitled to damages. The Judges of the Court of Session saw at once through this objection, and instantly repelled it, but at the same time sent the merits of the case to a jury. The defendants admitted the justice of the po licy, the state of accounts, and the valuations which had taken place, and they also acknowledged that the fire was accidental.

The Solicitor-General (Mr.

James Wedderburn), in defence, complained of the way in which the Counsel for the other side had treated his clients. He observed, that in every case of this description, Fire Insurance Companies were always sure to be abused, and in this instance that had not failed to be the case. He trusted he would show to the Jury, that there had been a gross overcharge, and that the most of the furniture and stock had been transferred to the plaintiff by a former partner, as of no value, being quite old and out of fashion.

The Solicitor General completely failed in his proof for the defendants, though he put in several written invoices to prove the goods were overcharged.

Henry Cockburn, esq. in reply, censured, in the most severe terms, the conduct of the London Imperial Insurance Company, and contended, that they had acted most ungenerously, and in fact most improperly in this case. His speech was loudly applauded.

Lord Gillies, the presiding Judge, summed up the evidence. He held it was indisputably the law, that Fire-offices were bound to adhere to the very terms of their policy. Persons who insured in the offices were not by any means bound to prove their losses by what was generally called legal evidence; for were such to be the case, there would be at once an end to many persons recovering their losses from insurance offices. He conceived it his duty to say, that when a loss was unfortunately sustained by fire, the unhappy sufferer was not bound to give what might be strictly called "legal" evidence,

but

but merely satisfactory evidence," by affidavit or other means. There would, in truth, be no kind of safety whatever for persons who insured in fire offices, if legal evidence was to be always called for, as it unquestionably was beyond the power of man in many instances to prove his loss by legal proof. The Jury had, however, the case before them, and though he laid down what in general was very properly the law, they would in this case come to such a conclusion as their conscience and country would approve.

Without any hesitation the Jury found for the pursuer (plaintiff) against the Imperial Insurance Company. The verdict has given general satisfaction, the case being considered very important in that part of the king dom. It was hailed with loud acclamations.

ARGYLE-ROOMS.

Yesterday (Nov. 2), a jury was empanelled before the Deputy High Bailiff, at the Guildhall, Westminster, to assess the dam. ages claimed by Mr. Slade, the proprietor of the Argyle-rooms, as compensation for the loss of those rooms, part of which are to be removed in order to continue the line of the New-street.

Mr. Sergeant Best, Mr. Sergeant Copley, and Mr. Chitty, were of counsel for the claimant.

The Attorney-General, Mr. Gurney, and Mr. Shepherd, jun., were retained for the Commissioners.

Mr. Sergeant Best stated the case to the Jury, and went at

some length into a detail of the facts, which afterwards appeared in evidence. The claims, he said, which Mr. Slade made against the Commissioners of the new street, were under three heads; first, for the value of the freehold property, which would be proved to be worth 1,150l. a-year, which, at seventeen years' purchase, would amount to 19,550.; next, three years profits of the rooms, in consequence of the loss of his business, consequent upon a removal; the average profits of the rooms amounted to 2,500l. a year, which, for three years, was 7,500l. The third head of claim was for a loss of 2,500l. upon a sale of wardrobes, &c. The learned Sergeant then dwelt upon the loss which the claimant was likely to sustain by the removal from his present situation, and the great difficulty he would find in procuring a similar one in a place where it could be advantageous to him.

The following evidence was called in support of the claim :

Mr. John White, a surveyor, had seen the premises, and valued them on the 18th of August last. They were most conveniently situated, and elegantly fitted up as assembly rooms, and were occasionally used for the performance of French plays. The freehold property in the rooms he valued at 18,650l. Besides the rooms, there was a cellar and offices, which were let at 50l. a year, and also two coach-houses and stable, which would bring in a rent of from 50l. to 60l. a year. He thought two seasons would be lost before such rooms could be

fitted up in another place. Colonel Greville, who had them before Mr. Slade, expended a great deal of money upon them.

Mr. Squibb had examined the rooms, and the offices adjoining to them. It would, according to his judgment, be very difficult to procure such a situation in any other convenient place; and it would consume at least two sea sons before they could be built and fitted up. The rooms he valued at 1,000l. a year, the stable and coach-house at 100l. a year, and the other offices and cellar at 50l. per year. The whole value he believed to be 19,550l. Mr. Slade's removal would, he conceived, be the entire annihilation of his business. There was property on the premises which was at present worth 5,000l. to Mr. Slade, but which he could not dispose of without a loss of 2,8661.

Mr. Dawson, a surveyor, had examined the rooms, and estimated their total value at 19,500l. The loss on some scenery and wardrobes would be very considerable. He also spoke of the excellence of the situation, and the difficulty of procuring a similar one in a convenient place.

Mr. Cresswell estimated the rooms to be worth 20,450l., without including the goodwill.

Another surveyor estimated them at 19,800%., with the same exception.

Mr. Henry Slade, jun. was in the habit of assisting his father in the management of the rooms. He was acquainted with their profits. The nett profits, after deducting rents, were 2,4631. a year. In his cross-examination,

he said that the sum received from the Philharmonic Society was 1747. a year.

Mr. Lequin, the conductor of the assemblies, knew the receipts. In 1817, they amounted to 3,3081., and in the present year to 3,291.. Mr. Ward also stated that the profits were very considerable.

The Door-keeper and Moneytaker was next called. He stated that his receipts in money on some nights exceeded 100%. but besides this there were a great number of tickets disposed of in several shops.

Mr. Slade, jun. again examined, stated, that the shopkeepers who sold tickets were allowed 1s. per ticket. They got a guinea for the ticket, and paid back 17. The lowest number of persons at the assemblies was about 350, and they seldom exceeded 500.

The case of the claimant being here closed,

The Attorney General, for the Commissioners, addressed the Jury, and contended, that the sum demanded by Mr. Slade was most exorbitant. He went on to show that the injury, if any to the claimant, by the removal, would be very little, for only some of the offices and a very small part of the orchestra would be touched. In fact, Mr. Slade could carry on his assemblies there when the new street was finished as well as before. to the time required for fitting new rooms elsewhere, it would not at most occupy more than nine months; for it should be remembered, that Covent-garden Theatre was built in less than

one year.

As

He

He then called Mr. Thompson, a surveyor, who stated, that he was employed by the Commissioners to examine the rooms. They were made assembly-rooms about 15 years ago; Mr. Slade bought them afterwards from Colonel Greville, but witness did not know what he gave for them. In 1803 or 1804 they were offered to him for 3,500%. After the passing of the New-street Act, he spoke to Mr. Slade on the subject of the rooms, and in consequence of what then passed the intended line of the street was in some degree altered. Only a small part of the premises were at present required: this consisted of the coach-house, stables, part of the counting-house, and a room which was used as a dress. ing-room. The assemblies could, in his opinion, be carried on there, after these were removed.

In his cross-examination he said, that the intended alteration would make the orchestra near the street, which would not be so advantageous, as it would be exposed to the noise of the carriages. In the subsequent part of his cross-examination, which was very long, he spoke of several conferences and verbal communications which had passed with Mr. Slade on the subject before. He also said that Col. Greville and Mr. Slade had expended several thousand pounds on the rooms.

Mr. Lethbridge, the machinist at Drury-lane theatre, stated, that the inconvenience of the orchestra being near the street could be remedied, by having two walls with a space between them, which, when filled up with

or

saw-dust, wool, horse-hair, woollen-cloth, would prevent the sound from without; and when a boarded partition was raised inside, the effect of the music would not be diminished within. He added, that the building of new rooms would not occupy more than nine months.

Mr. Ayrton, one of the managers of the Philharmonic Society, gave it as his opinion, that the assemblies could be held at the rooms after the proposed alterations. The new street he considered would be an advantage to them.

Mr. Montague, Mr. Willock, and another surveyor, stated that the premises were not worth more than 14,610.

The case for the Commis. sioners being closed,

Mr. Sergeant Best, in reply, contended, that his client had a right, by the act of Parliament, to make the Commissioners take the whole of his premises, though perhaps only a part of them was wanted. He also maintained that the sum demanded was only a fair compensation for the loss Mr. Slade would sustain.

The Deputy High Bailiff summed up the evidence, and the jury, after half an hour's deliberation, returned a verdict for the claimant.-Compensation 22,750l.