THE HORSE POISONING FRAUDS IN ENGLAND.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3151, 3 September 1892, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE HORSE POISONING FRAUDS IN ENGLAND.

From Home papers to hand we are put in possession of further details of the extensive frauds lately practised upon several British live stock insurance companies, by means of heavily insuring horses, and then poisoning them. It appears that five men, named Catto, White, Barrow, Stephen, aud Machautie, entered into a policy of insurance in London with certain insurance com- j panies, especially the British and Foreign ] Insurance Company, for the insurance of certain horses for different amounts. The horses m one case were shipped to the United States, and in three other cases to the One of the horses was insured for £'2000, and its value was £20 ; another insured for £620, was of the value of £79, as ascertained by actual sale. Maehattie brought the horses to London, saw them shipped, and sent White and Catto, his grooms, who were Aberdeen men too, with them. The charge was that the horses, shipped from London by the Scandinavian, the Hawarden Castle, the Pretoria, and the Dacre, were under the charge of Machattie's grooms, and that they poisoned them on board ship. Four, the first cargo, all died, and three of the second cargo died. Then the insurance companies, who had previously been suspicious, became certain that there was fraud, and they sent privately a veterinary surgeon (Mr Waddel!) iu the next vessel, the Pretoria. Just as before, very soon a horse died, Waddel had watched the whole thing had seen the horse and, unknown to the srroom dissected the horse and toolc out tho stomach. No more horses died upon that ocuasion. On the Dame, similar precautions were taken, and as a result the men were arrested. Commenting- on this, *he North Brilisli Agriculturist remarks :—

" Whatever may bo the verdict in regard to the parties implicated in the poisoning business, the fact remains that the insurance companies concerned hava acted in this affair with a recklessness which is simply astounding. According to their own showing, they have issued policies for £2000 on animals not worth £'20 ; in fact, they claim to have been so very innocent as not to know that a horse dealer or anyone else could swerve from the truth until this business forced that unpleasant fact upon them. This might be innocence of a kind, but if .-o it was a most direct temptation to fraudulently inclined individuals to engage in the very species of fraud, which is nosv alleged to have been committed. Live »tock insurance companies who conduct their business upon a proper basis are always careful to see that the animals are not insured at more than three-fourths of their wellascertained value, -?o that the owners may' have a direct interest in maintaining the insured animals in life and health. But to recklessly insure any kind of property at ten or twenty times its real value is simply to provide the most powerful temptation to fraud that the wit of man could devise.