MACE V. LA1?CASHIBE INS. CO. 63 �cïrcumstances, but they must be such as to establisb the main |aot,iffith reasonable certainty, A mere Buspicion is not enough. The jury must be satisfied that the fact is estab- lished by a clear preponderance of tho evidence adduced le- fore them. �In a case -where the evidence is evenly balance d, or the jury isindoubt as to whatthe truth is on that point, there is not a preponderance of evidence. The defendants are not bound in a case like the present, as they would be in a crim- inal prosecution for arson, to prove the fact beyond ail reason- able doubt, but they are reqùired to produce proof sufficient toclearly satisfy the jury that the charge is true. �The jury ■will, if they find for plaintiffs, find and state in their verdict the value of the entire stock destroyed, vrith in- terest; as hereinafter stated, and damages, if any are allowed. The court will, if you so find, afterwards determine the amount of the recovery in each case and render judgment accordingly; the parties, by their counsel, having consented to this form. �The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to damages, in addition to the value of their property destroyed, on account of vexations delay caused by the conduct of the defendants. To establish this claim the plaintiff must shoW that the de- fendants had not reasonable ground for contesting either the validity or the amount of the claim. If you find from tho evidence that there was vexations delay, within this definition, you may add to the value of the property destroyed not ex- ceeding 10 per centum of the amount of such loss, and include such addition in your verdict. The burden is upon the plain- tiffs to prove the fact of vexations delay by a preponderance of testimony. �If the jury finds for the plaintifïs, then it will add to the amount of loss found interest at 6 per cent, per annum from the fourteenth day of March, 1879, when the demand is shown by the uncontradicted testimony to have been madc. ����
