¶1The word abetting made the party a principal in the second degree. 4 Burr. 2082. And it is the province of the court to determine what acts afford proof of malice. Burr. 396, 474, 937. 3 Term Rep. 428. But it is clearly settled that we are confined to the facts found in a special verdict, and cannot supply the want thereof, by any argument, or implication from what is expressly found. 2 Haw. c. 47, § 9. Is it possible for this court to infer that the conduct of captain Price increased the risk of the insurer, (though our private judgments may be fully satisfied on that point) when it has been submitted as a fact proper for the jury’s consideration, and they could not agree in their conclusion after repeated efforts ? No judgment *can be rendered on this verdict, and therefore a venire *387] facias de novo is awarded.
3 Yeates 375
Crousillat v. Ball
Decided March 15, 1802
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1802-03-15
It was also contended, that notice of the abandonment to the broker did not chai'ge the underwriter, unless it was traced to him also. The defendant urged that the broker was the agent of the assured, being employed by him. Lex Mercat. Red. 456. Weslc 65, § 8. The local circumstances of both countries do not disagree in this particular.
Cited by 2 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1831
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1802-03-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →