Ziegler v. Hustisford Farmers' Mutual Insurance

Defendants contend that the court erred in instructing the jury (1) as to the degree of evidence by which tlie defendants were required to sustain their burden of proof as to arson by the insured and (2) as to the effect of the jury’s answer to the special verdict; and (3) also erred in refusing to receive evidence on cross-examination of the assured’s widow as to the terms of his will to show her interest in the property destroyed.

The evidence upon which defendants relied to establish that the insured set fire to the property was merely circumstantial. In relation to that issue there was…