Alverson v. Anchor Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1898
• Citation: 105 Iowa 60,74 N.W. 746
• Parties: ALVERSON ET AL. v. ANCHOR MUT. FIRE INS. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

105 Iowa 60

74 N.W. 746

ALVERSON ET AL.

v.ANCHOR MUT. FIRE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 7, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Davis county; F. W. Eichelberger, Judge.

Action on a policy of fire insurance. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. Affirmed.S. S. Carruthers and Sullivan & Sullivan, for appellant.

Payne & Sowers and Traverse & Taylor, for appellee.

GRANGER, J.

1. The trial of this cause commenced April 9, 1896. During the vacation preceding, the defendant presented an application for a change of place of trial because of the prejudice of the people of Davis county, which application was supported by affidavit. From the showing for the change of place of trial, it is made to appear that the persons constituting the plaintiff firm, Alverson & Hamilton, had been jointly indicted on a charge of having burned the building and the stock of goods, or a part thereof; that a defense in this case is that at least a part of the property was destroyed by fire by the willful and fraudulent acts of the plaintiff; that Alverson was tried on the indictment in Davis county, which trial occupied some 10 days of time, in which some 140 witnesses were examined, about 120 of whom resided in Davis county; that the cost of the trial was about $4,000; that the trial attracted quite a general public interest in the county, many people being in attendance; that the newspapers of the county made comments as to the trial, and the cost of it. There was a verdict of not guilty, and certain exhibits to the application are copies of articles published after the trial, in which the facts and proceedings are somewhat detailed, with a statement that the county attorney was being censured for having pushed the case for trial at the time he did, and on the evidence he presented. In one paper stress was placed on the matter of costs to the county, that might have been avoided had the case not been pressed for trial before the civil suits to recover on the policies of insurance, in which the same question would be presented. The other paper took a contrary view of the matter, claiming that the statements as to costs and the conduct of the county attorney were untrue; that the records showed the costs to be somewhere near $1,250, and justified the acts of the county attorney. It appears that these papers had a circulation of about 800 copies each in the county, and that they were distributed from every post office therein. Besides these exhibits are affidavits in support of the application, to the effect that the defendants could not have a fair trial in Davis county, because of the prejudice of the inhabitants. These affidavits recite what the affiants have seen and heard, and the conclusion that such a prejudice exists. Of these there are 7 or 8. A counter showing makes it appear that the population of the county is in excess of 15,000, and that there are 2,364 persons in the county subject to duty as jurors. It also appears from the affidavits of some 30 or more persons residing in different parts of the county, who are entirely disinterested, that there is no prejudice existing in the county against the defendant. This conclusion is based on the facts stated, that they had not heard any of the inhabitants of the county talk about the case, and they did not know themselves that there was such a case pending in Davis county until they were asked to sign the affidavits. We do not overlook the fact that these affidavits are limited in scope to knowledge or talk of this particular case;...