130 ER 136

• Jurisdiction: England & Wales
• Judgment Date: 10 November 1823
• Year: 1823
• Date: 10 November 1823
• Court: Court of Common Pleas

English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 136

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS

Thomas Thurtell

and

Beaumont

S. C. 2 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 4.

[339] thomas thurtell v. beaumont. Nov. 10, 1823. [S. C. 2 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 4.] 1. In an action against an insurance company to recover a loss by fire, the defence being that the Plaintiff himself had wilfully set fire to the premises, the Judge (a) Richardson J. was prevented, by illness, from taking his seat in court during the whole of this term; and Dallas C.J. after the 13th of November. C. J. was absent. IBINd.MO. THURTELL V. BEAUMONT 137 directed the jury, that in ordar to their finding a verdict against the Plaintiff, thay ought to be satisfied that the crime imputed to him was as fully proved as would justify them in finding him guilty on a criminal charge for the game offence : Held, that this direction was right.-2. In the same cause the Court refused to grant a rule nisi for a new trial on the ground that subsequently to a verdict for the Plaintiff, the grand jury had found a bill against htm and others for a conspiracy to defraud the insurance company in this very matter.-3. But on affidavits dis-cloiing the conspiracy itself, and shewing that the Defendant did not attain a knowledge of it till after the trial, so that the Plaintiff's case was in effect a surprise on him, the Court granted a rule nisi for a new trial, on payment of costs. Aesumpait against the managing director of an insurance company to recover the value of goods alleged to have been destroyed by fire in the Plaintiffs warehouse. At the trial before Park J. at the London sittings after last term, the defence set up was, that the Plaintiff had wilfully set fire to the premises, or had caused them to be set fire to. Positive testimony was adduced, and inconsistencies were pointed out in the Plaintiffs evidence tending to substantiate this charge. The learned Judge directed the jury, that before they gave a verdict against the Plaintiff, it was their duty to be satisfied that the crime of wilfully setting fire to the premises was as clearly brought home to him in this action as would warrant their finding him guilty of the capital offence, if he had been tried before them on a criminal charge. The jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff in the sum of 19131., the value of tbe goods which John Thurtell, a brother of the Plaintiff, swore were on the premises at the time of the fire. Tiddy Serjt. now moved for a new trial, on the...