APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 315 



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 employ- 

 ment 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 bring- 

 ing this poor Scotsman into a 

 fine scrape, in consequence of his 

 correcting his accounts. In con- 

 clusion, the learned Counsel con- 

 tended that the letter sent from 

 the Imperial Fire Office to the 

 plaintiff in Glasgow, was in- 

 finitely 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 mistak- 

 ing four dozen of clock dial 

 plates for four dozen of trays. 

 On this mistake the London Im- 

 perial 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 ob- 

 served, that in every case of this 

 description, Fire Insurance Com- 

 panies 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 plaintifi" by a 

 former partner, as of no value, 

 being quite old and out of fashion. 



The Solicitor General com- 

 pletely 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 Im- 

 perial 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 

 b}' 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 in- 

 surance 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 



