314 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



you are not to give vindictive 

 damages. 



The Jury, retiring for a short 

 time, found. — Damages, 1,5001. 



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 con- 

 sequence of the defenders being 

 a London Insurance Company. 

 The case had been htigated for 

 some time before the Court of 

 Session, who directed the follow- 

 ing 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 Rotten^ 

 row-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 De- 

 cember, 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 Com- 

 pany ? 



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 Insurance- 

 office Company, and regularly 

 paid the premiums. The parti- 

 culars of this policy were, 200/., 

 for the building, and 550/. for the 

 stock in trade and other utensils, 

 as a japanner and pewterer, 

 making in all 750/. On Christmas- 

 day, 1816, the premiaes 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. Bogie, 

 in Hutcheson-street, Glasgow, 

 agent for the company, for pay- 

 ment 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. M'Callum, a measurer (sur- 

 veyor), both gave in valuations 

 of the tenement, the former at 

 more than 220/., the latter at 

 276/. In addition to this, Mr. 

 Drew gave in his account of loss, 

 to which he made affidavit, and 

 which was in toto 675/. 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 except- 

 ed.'' He was afterwards told a 

 more specific account was neces- 

 sary, 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 de- 

 fraud the Company. They, how- 

 ever, disputed the account, on 

 which the pursuer (plaintiff) 



begged 



