ambler case cleeve against Gascoigne that July new trial for misdirection of  the judge and absence of a material witness see baker v heart Ves lib Reg a  foe a the defendant sir crisp Gascoigne have buy a estate in Essex insure with  the plaintiff a life that be stand out which he affirm to be a good life but  which soon afterward drop and he bring two several action in the commonplea  against two of the insurer upon the policy and obtain a verdict in each the  plaintiff file this bill in order to be relieve against the policy on the foot  of fraud and imposition and on the hear a action be direct to be bring and try  before Lord chief justice rider in the king bench upon that trial the  plaintiff Cleeve obtain a verdict and the cause come on again to be hear on  the equity reserve sir crisp Gascoigne apply for a new trial Lord Hardwicke  chancellor this application be make upon three ground saint that a material  witness for sir crisp be prevent by illness from be at the trial d that he  have two verdict in his favour d that the judge give misdirections as to saint  the absence of a witness who testimony will only corroborate that of several  other upon a fact be not a reason even in this court to grant a new trial but  there be something particular in this person testimony for at the former trial  be swear that on one of the insurer tell he that he have impose a bad life  upon they sir crisp answer he will let they off if he choose it there be a  circumstance in it very favourable for the defendant from his have make that  offer and if be not in his power to put off the trial because it be swear that  after he be serve with a subpoena on the very day he be to set out to attend  the trial the witness be ambler take I with a disorder which it be at that  time apprehend tend to a mortification so that there be no neglect to be  impute to the defendant on that account as to d it be say in answer that the  former verdict be give on a particular circumstance attend those trial but it  be impossible to say what the jury go upon as to d it be swear on the part of  the defendant and not contradict on the other side that the judge direct the  jury to consider saint whether sir crisp affirm ambler er p the life to be a  good one dly whether he know it to be a bad life and dly whether it be a bad  life though not know to sir crisp Gascoigne to be so with great respect to the  knowledge of the judge I think the last part be go too far for though where a  man affirm a thing to be so which be otherwise it be a falsity and fraud in he  whether he know it or not yet that must be understand with a distinction where  the affirmation be of a fact which be in itself certain as of the loss or miss  of a ship or that such a farm be let at so much it be so but where it be a  matter of opinion as of the state of health of any person or of the value of a  farm that be let at so much it be not so and it be impossible to say upon what  the jury find their verdict in this case but I go still further this court  have frequent rant new trial mere because the inheritance be to be bind by it  V hard v size cite vern in which there be five trial Stace v mabbot Ves it be  true that so much regard be not pay to personal property but in this case a  gentleman character be at stake therefore let there be a new trial on the  defendant pay the cost note the motion be on the ground that though the  verdict be find for sir b Cleve yet that the weight of evidence be on the side  of sir crisp Gascoigne and that g l a very material witness can not attend the  trial by reason of illness but be now recover and able to give evidence at any  future trial lib Reg