on the night of the fire, the jury would see the improbability, nay the impossibility, of his having raised that fire himself. Mr. Wakely was standing in a situation of comfort, nay, of comparative opulence; he was rising fast into practice and reputation, -the respected member of an honourable profession; and, so far from having any thing to gain by the destruction of his property, he would, even after receiving 1,2001. from the defendants, stand in the situation of a very considerable loser.

The formal proof in the case being admitted on the part of the Hope Company, Mr. Wakely's policy, the due notice, and other documents, were put in and read.

Mr. George Thomson was then called, and examined by Mr. Curwood.-The witness said I live in Argyle-street, next door to the plaintiff; his house (No. 5) is my freehold. On the morning of the 27th of August, just before one o'clock, we were alarmed by a knocking at all the doors in the street: I jumped up, looked out of a back window, and found the house next door on fire. The flames rushed out of the back parlour window, and lighted up the yard; I ran down into Argyle-street, and found the street-door of No. 5 open, and the house passage in a blaze. About three quarters of an hour after it was that I first saw Mr. Wakely. He was then in the passage of my house; I do not know how he came there; I had been in and out, removing my plate, &c. Mr. Wakely, when I saw him, was covered with dirt and blood; his clothes were wet, and he had the appearance of a

man either deranged or intoxicated. I never saw a man in such a state before. After giving him a little wine, I requested Mr. Parker, our opposite neighbour, to take him over to his house; Mr. Parker did so. After the roof of No. 5 had fallen in, about four in the morning, I saw Mr. Wakely again: he was in bed at Mr. Parker's, extremely languid and ill; and he showed me some cuts on his breast. I think there were three cuts; I saw no bruises. I have been in Mr. Wakely's house, in the dining-room, but not in the drawingroom: the furniture seemed to me to be the same that Mr. Archdeacon Wollaston, the former occupier of the house, had sold to Mr. Wakely.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney.-The first alarm was at 20 minutes before two on Sunday morning; not before one.

[A model of Mr. Wakely's house, in Argyll-street, was then placed upon the table.]

Mr. S. Parker.-I live at 34, Argyle-street, nearly opposite the plaintiff's house. The first I saw of the fire was, that the flames were rushing from the front parlour windows. I went to the assistance of Mr. Thomson, the last witness. I did not see Mr. Wakely until Mr. Thomson gave him to my care. He then seemed almost deranged: his face was bloody, his hands covered with dirt, he was much agitated, and his whole body was in profuse perspiration; blood from his ear had trickled down his face. I put him to bed at my house; he vomited extremely in going up stairs. As we crossed the street a thief seized Mr. Wakely's watch; Mr. Wakely

seized him, and gave him into the charge of an officer; he then sunk down exhausted. I looked at his body; it was much bruised, and he had been stabbed in three places. He repeated constantly am I safe?" He drank water greedily in my house. I never saw Mr. Wakely before the night of the fire.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney.-Dr. Luke attended him at my house his clothes remained some time at my house: Mr. Thomson, jun. at last took them

away.

Mr. J. Thomson, jun.-I am the son of Mr. George Thomson, and live with him. On being alarmed I ran down into the street. Mr. Wakely's door was open, and the lamplighter had a ladder up to the first floor window. I searched for Mr. Wakely, and asked if he was safe: the neighbours said Mrs. Wakely was safe, but they thought Mr. Wakely was burned. I went to the windows at the top of my own house, and called him loudly; but there was no answer. Between three and four o'clock I first saw Mr. Wakely, at Mr. Parker's house. He was languid and spoke little.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pollock. I was before the magis trate, Mr. Farren. The dressing coat and waistcoat worn by Mr. Wakely were produced at that time; the examination was at Mr. Parker's house. My father sleeps on the first floor of our house; a female servant sleeps in a back room on the ground floor; my father's window looks into Mr. Wakely's yard.

Mr. Wm. Gardner said-I was at Mr. Wakely's house about ten o'clock on the night of the fire.

His eyes seemed much affected, and he said he was going to put leeches to them. I wished him to come to see my daughter, who was ill; he said he was himself ill, and that he would come in the morning; he asked me to sup; I declined. I reached my house, 294, Oxford-street, a few minutes before 11 o'clock.

Daniel Wicher.-I was servant to Mr. Wakely. On the night of the fire I went to bed about half past 11: my wife, myself, and Mr. Wakely were in the house. My wife and I went to bed, leav. ing my master in the back parlour, going to put leeches to his face. I was first alarmed by a knocking at the door and a springing of rattles. I think it must have been about one o'clock. When I came down stairs, I saw the flame bursting from a partition between the two parlour doors into the passage. My wife came down before me. I looked for my master: I made an attempt at both parlours, but could not get near them for the fire. The first I saw of my master was at Mr. Parker's, about six in the morning. I went to live with Mr. Wakely on the 5th December, 1819; just before his marriage. A little new furniture came home at the time of his marriage. The house was pretty well furnished, but not handsomely. My master paid regu larly every man his own.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marryat.-My master had bought the most of his furniture from Archdeacon Wollaston. The new furniture, which came at his marriage, was a sofa table and two card tables, and some other things that came from a Mr. Ashelford. I slept in the front

garret of my master's house. I asked my master, before I went to bed, if I should sit up with him; he said not. On the alarm being given, I went to my master's bed-room, which was the back garret he was not there. I had been asleep when the alarm was given.

A

Sarah Wicher.-I am wife to the last witness, and lived with Mr. Wakely. The house was extremely well furnished. great deal of new goods came in at Mr. Wakely's marriage. There was a great quantity of linen of every kind, and very good. Mrs. Wakely's apparel was handsome and abundant. All bills were paid weekly or monthly. As soon as I was alarmed, I ran down stairs, and cried "fire!" The street door was not locked; when I took hold of the lock it opened at once; it was a catch lock, and the door might be shut from the outside.

Joseph Ashelford.-I am an upholsterer. I have known Mr. Wakely since 1816. I knew his house in Argyle-street: it was well furnished, but not in the modern style. I believe that the house contained the furniture mentioned in the inventory delivered to the Hope office. I furnished goods to the amount of 80l. or 901. over and above the furniture taken from Archdeacon Wollaston. In December 1819, I saw the Archdeacon's furniture, and valued it: my estimate did not include fixtures.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney. I gave my opinion as to the value of the things taken from Archdeacon Wollaston: I took them to be worth from 500l. to 600l. Mr. Wakely bought them for 300.; he afterwards

brought some furniture of his own into the house. I furnished goods to the amount of 801.; they were not paid for at the time of the fire: they are paid for now. I valued the things in the inventory presented to the office. I valued three rose-wood tables in that inventory at 271.

Mr. Gurney. They are charg ed, my lord, in the maker's bill at 167.

Cross-examination resumed.My inventory for the office was made after the fire; and of course from memory.

Samuel Malison.-I was formerly a surgeon and apothecary, in Mill-street, Hanover-square. At the latter end of the year 1818, I sold my business and stock to the plaintiff. My household goods were charged at 40%.; 400l. was given for drugs and goodwill. The gross returns of my business were 600l. a-year. Mr. Wakely re-sold the business which he bought of me, to a gentleman named Comley.

Mr. Archdeacon Wollaston.I lived at 5, Argyle-street, and let that house to Mr. Wakely. I sold my furniture for 300l. to Mr. Wakely, and gave him the fixtures into the bargain. dined with the plaintiff after his marriage, and saw that he had plate; additions had been made to the furniture.

I

have known Mr. Wakely three or four years. He first was in business in the city, and seemed to do well for a young man.

Mr. Malison called back. Over and above the 40l. I mentioned, I received 30l. more from the plaintiff for some articles of furniture.

Mr. W. Goodchild. I am father-in-law to the plaintiff. My daughter was handsomely fitted out upon her marriage. I gave her - 3001. for clothes alone; and afterwards gave her 30l. worth of plate. Presents were also made by different branches of her family. I gave my daughter the money, and desired her to buy what she pleased: she afterwards offered me the tradesmen's receipts; but I did not accept them. Mrs. Wakely was at my house at the time of the fire: she was unwell, and on a visit to me at Hammersmith.

Miss Mary Goodchild.-Mrs. Wakely is my sister. I am sure that she laid out the money given to her by my father on her marriage.

Mr. Thomas Faithorn. I have been some time the plaintiff's solicitor. Upon a statement which he made to me after his marriage, I advised him to increase his insurance. It was then 600l. I have dined often with Mr. Wakely. I dined with him three days before the fire; things looked as usual. There was always an abundance of plate and glass in his house.

Mr. Denman. That is my case, my Lord.

Mr. Marryat felt no doubt of convincing the jury, that the Hope Company were bound, both in justice to themselves, and in duty to the public, to resist, even

to the utmost, the claim of the plaintiff. The jury had heard Mr. Wakely's story: upon his own admission it was extraordinary; upon the evidence which he (Mr. Marryat) should adduce, it would appear incredible. The worth of Mr. Ashelford's evidence would be easily appreciated, when it was seen that he had valued at 271. tables which, new, had cost only 161. Now there was a clause in the policy held by the plaintiff, that if, upon the making out a claim of loss, any false swearing or attempt at imposition was set up, then the claimant should forfeit all benefit of his insurance. Upon that ground, in the first instance, he should contend, and he trusted successfully, that a verdict must pass for the defendants. That fraud, and gross fraud, had been committed by Mr. Wakely in his claim, the jury could scarcely doubt, when they looked at the inventory furnished to the Hope Company. For furniture, which had cost at most 450l., 735l. was charged; for plate 1681. was claimed, though all the melted metal found in the ruins had weighed only 73 ounces; and articles had been put into the inventory as silver, remnants of which had been found, and which turned out to be merely plated. But the most audacious part of the business was the immense difference between the sums claimed for various descriptions of property and the bills of purchase, and other vouchers, put in to prove the existence of such property Furniture, 730l.; vouchers under 500l.; books, 1044.; vouchers, 5. 10s.: linen, 1014.; vouchers for 18.; Mr. Wakely's apparel,

1447.; vouchers 671. Mrs. Wakely's apparel, 300l.; vouchers under 100.: china 1634.; vouchers 147. And Mr. Wakely was a young man, only a few months a housekeeper; and therefore with every means of proving purchases, which, if made at all, must have been made less than eight months before the accident. There were some points, too, as to which Mr. Wakely's situation had been a little misrepresented to the court. His extensive practice had been spoken of; but no proof had been given; no supply of drugs, nor even of phials, shown. As there had been no proof in support of this great practice, however, there should be some against it; for a gentleman would be called who had attended to Mr. Wakely's business for him during an absence of ten days from London; and that gentleman would tell the jury, that, in the course of the whole ten days, he had attended but one patient, and that patient a woman in a menial station of life. But now Mr. Marryat came to the extraordinary part of the case-to the attack upon Mr. Wakely to the visit of the midnight assassin. That assassin must have been a man of no ordinary penetration: he must have discovered that Mr. Wakely had a patient named Ivatt; and he must have foreseen, that, at the particular hour of his visit, and on the particular night, Mr. Wakely would, in person, open the street door to him (having previously sent all the servants to bed); refuse to attend a patient, and go down stairs to draw beer. He (Mr. Marryat) put it to the jury, whether a gentleman knocked up at twelve at night,

and asked for liquor, was not more likely to give the petitioner sixpence, and send him to the next public house, than himself to go down into the cellar to draw cider for him. The assassin, however, it was said, knocked Mr. Wakely down, and stabbed him, taking care, however, not to hurt him very seriously, it should seem, because he went to Hammersmith to his family next day; and even the doctor who attended him had not been called upon the present occasion to speak to the nature of his wounds. Well! being assassinated, Mr. Wakely was found, half an hour after the alarm of fire was given, in Mr. Thomson's house. Where had he been from the breaking out of the fire? Oh, when he found the house in flames, he got into the back kitchen, forced his way through a skylight, on to some leads, and thence got over a wall. But why go through the kitchen, and through the skylight,and over the wall, when he might have walked out at the street door?for the servants, who came down stairs when the alarm was given from without, found no difficulty in going out by the street door. And again, why break the skylight to get upon the leads, when there was a back door, out of which he might have walked on to the leads without any breaking at all? Mr. Wakely's face was bloody when he was found. No doubt; he had been applying leeches to it. But his clothes were bloody. Yes, and those clothes had been preserved: they would be produced in Court, and would form perhaps the most conclusive evidence that could be adduced against the plaintiff. There was another circumstance