254 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1S18. 



pidon existed, to resist any 

 claim, it was not less their duty 

 to pay readily the sum insured, 

 where the transaction itself casts 

 no imputation upon the demean- 

 our or character of the party. 

 As far as it was possible to judge, 

 his Lordship could not discover 

 that any suspicion attached to 

 the case, either from the circum- 

 stances attending the fire, or 

 from the conduct cf the plaintiff 

 either before or after that cala- 

 mity. It sometimes happened 

 that goods or houses were not 

 nearly of the value for which 

 they were insured ; sometimes a 

 clandestine removal of goods was 

 established ; but here none of 

 those facts had been proved, and 

 therefore there appeared no in- 

 ducement, or at least no adequate 

 inducement, for the plaintiff to 

 put his life in jeopardy by com- 

 mitting the crime of arson. As 

 to the question of damages, it 

 appeared that the insurance in 

 the whole Avas 3,000/.: but though 

 that sum was covered by the 

 policy, the jurj^were not called 

 upon to give that amount, pro- 

 vided they thought the property 

 not worth the sum: the office 

 was not in any case bound to pay 

 more than the party proved that 

 he had lost. It was admitted, 

 that a certain deduction was to 

 be made from the whole amount 

 claimed. The fire broke out in 

 the middle of the day, when aid 

 was nearest, and when the dis- 

 covery of the crime, if it existed, 

 could be most easilj^ made ; and 

 the plaintiff, without any conceal- 

 ment, left the premises only a 

 short time before the flames were 

 discovered. Besides this, there 

 was no appearance of any con- 



trivance with combustibles to 

 produce sudden and unexpected 

 conflagration, and the plaintiff 

 had afforded the Eagle Assur- 

 ance Company all the means in 

 his power of ascertaining whether 

 or not any fraud had been com- 

 mitted. 



The jury consulted a few 

 moments, and found a verdict for 

 the plaintiff, damages 2,800/. 



CONSISTORY-COURT, FeB. 20. 



Lady Kirkwall against Lord 

 Kirkivall. — This question arose 

 on the usual application made by 

 Lady Kirkwall, for the Court to 

 allot her permanent alimony. 



Dr. Swabey, on behalf of Lady 

 Kirkwall, stated, that the Court 

 had been pleased to allot the sum 

 of 600/. in addition to 400/. pin- 

 money, for the maintenance of 

 her ladyship during the depen- 

 dence of her suit; but in allotting 

 permanent alimony the general 

 practice of the Court was, rather 

 to increase than diminish the 

 sum. The wife was supposed to 

 live retired during the investiga- 

 tion of her complaint, and the 

 husband was answerable for the 

 whole expense of the suit. But 

 the wife having proved her 

 charge, was entitled to return to 

 the world, and to enjoy such a 

 portion of her husband's income 

 as would maintain her in her 

 proper rank. An allegation of 

 faculties has been given in, and 

 Lord Kirkwall's answers on oath 

 are now before the Court. Her 

 ladyship has not examined any 

 witnesses on that allegation, but 

 is content to rest her case upon 

 the plea and answers. An affi- 

 davit is now offered by Lord 

 Kirkwall, stating, " that on fur- 

 ther inquirj- into the state of his 



affairs. 



