FIRS INSURANCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 150, 26 June 1889, Page 2

FIRS INSURANCE.

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE. V. SOUTH BRITISH.

CLAIM, £562.

Mb E. Hesketh, who appeared wibh Mr T. Cotter, insbructed by Messrs Jackson and Russell, on behalf of the South British Insurance Company, addressed the jury after we went to press yesterday.

Before commencing the formal address, Mr Hesketh asked for further information as to His Honor's ruling on the motion for nonsuit, which was nob allowed. He asked whether the ruling of the Judge went so far as to exclude any evidence of waiver, whether he was afc liberty to refer to euch evidence, or whether the ruling went so far as to say that the agreement entered into between Mr Skinner and Mr Bradbury amounted to this : That the Company had no right afberwards to ask for a proof of loss.

His Honor replied that whab he said was that there were facts from which the jury anight infer as to whether the condibions and stipulations were substantially performed.

Mr Hesketh : Have I the right to refer to waiver in addressing the jury ? His Honor : You have a perfecb right to refor to ib.

Mr Hesketh said he did not wish to speak to the jury upon any question of law, bub he understood the "question of waiver was open for the jury. His Honor said he did nob look upon any waiver in the matter.

Mr Heeketh then proceeded to address the. jury as follows:—Gentlemen of the jury, — I will now urge upon your consideration such observations as appertain to the case opened up by the defence. Shortly, the defence is founded on two main points. First of all thab the contract of insurance was subject to the performance of certain conditions. The defendanbs say : You have nob performed these condibions, and therefore you are not entitled to the payment of this sum of money- The obher main point of defence is, that even if these conditions were performed, the insurer was at the same time guilty of an act which brought about this fire, and debarred himself fromreceivingany benefits from the insurance effected. I feel it is quite open to me to address you at great length upon numerous points, but I feel that I will be able to discharge my duty to the defendants without entering into minute questione. I prefer to meet on broad grounds any question as to whether or not the conditions of the policy have been performed, or whether the defendanbs are liable to make good the loss susbained. There is upon the record of evidence a statement thab the Official Assignee has become entitled to recover these moneys, and that ■will not be challenged. The mere fact of bankrupbey taking- place, however, cannot deprive the Insurance Company of bhe right to a performance of the conditions, jusb as if Bradbury had been suing instead ol the Official Assignee. Ib is perfectly true the benefit of the policy is vested in him, bub at the same time, the benefit cannob accrue to him if the person he represents deprived him of all benefit under the policy. I do not wish you to have any false notion or impression as to my position. The defence is a short one, and bhe force and effecb of that shorb defence is this : That you, Herbert Bradbury, seb fire to this building ; that you, Herbert Bradbury, intended to commit; arson by sebting fire to the building for the purpose of recovering the insurance. My friend, Mr Campbell, may say this in truth 13 putting the young man upon his trial for arson, and that the same degree of proof must be adduced as in a criminal trial for arson. I do nob oppose that position for a moment, gentlemen. I feel that, upon the one hand, my friend is defending a prisoner accused of arson, and that, on the other hand, I am in the position of prosecubor of a man charged with that crime. While my friend ia called upon to exert himself to the utmost for the purfose of clearing the young man, I feel that occupy different ground. I sband here charged as represenbing the public good, to hold the scales evenly, nob againsb this man, to attempt to strain evidence, or draw conclusions of guilt when I am conBcious there is no room for such conclusions. That is the feeling that impresses me at the present moment. My desire is to Belp you, to join with you as far as I can, and only to ask you to draw just conclusions from facts. My friend will not be one tibble behind in exercising his privileges in exonerating Bradbury from bhis crime. Wibh these ideas let us approach the question ab iesue without anything like prejudice or undue i ■warmth, and I think I will conclusively show that this crime was done by Bradbury. My friend may say : " Well, gentlemen, that is all circumstantial evidence, and being circumstantial evidence therefore be cautious ; be very careful in giving effect to this circumstantial evidence." I would not say otherwise ; I would rabher join with him and say exacbly the same wordh. Now what kind of evidence is there? We have direct evidence and we have indirect or circumstantial evidence. What is direct evidence a3 contrasted with circumstantial evidence? Do they not both come to us in a direct form? (Mr Hesketh illustrated his argument on the poinb by suggesting several supposititious cases,in which circumstantial evidence would be accepted as proof of guilt.) In the present case we start wibh bhe particular facb of the fire, &nd lay before you obher facts, and ask whebher whab is circumstantial and what i 3 facb is not such as to remove any doubt whatever fromyourmindsthat the fire was caused by the person we are alluding to. Take another case. Take a case tried in this Courb. A person is found in possession of property recently stolen. Firsb of all a wibness deposes that on a cerbain night these things were stolen out of his house. Another wibness deposes thab nexb morning these goods were found in the possession of a certain man. Another witness says, " I saw him outside your house last night about 11 o'clock." What have you got there ? Firsb of all, evidence of theft. ; Secondly, the close proximity of the man at; the time and place ; and thirdly, the facb that he was found to be in possession of the sbolen property. Whab does our law Bay there? Whab are our judges called upon to do, bub to tell the jury that as he was found in recent possession of the property and unable to account for possession of it, you are justified in concluding that he was guilty of the bheft ? In this case what is there ? Here is a fire. Here are a lot of circumstances. These circumstances point to one person, and one person only. These circumstances exclude any hypothesis that the fire was not committed by this young man. In other words, what is contended for by the defence is that these circumstances lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the hand of Bradbury thatsebfireto this building. Thereisanothor question that arises, and it is the nature of these facts. Of course we are all liable to be mistaken. Take a case of evidence being adduced before you in which we find footmarks outside of a building. We have compared the boots of the prisoner with the footmarks, and we find that bhe nails of the boots correspond with the marks in the imprint. One wibness belle you of a conversation that he had with the prisoner, another wibness speaks as to disbance, arid so forbh. There is plenty of room for mistake in such a case as that, but when you como to the circumstances surrounding the present case there is no such room for mistake. There is the fire, and there is no dispute about that. , It occurred in a certain room, and there ib no dispute about thab. The fire took, place m a room to which only one man

had access, by reason of it being closed and locked, and the last person in that room was Bradbury. There is the fact that) the fire waa found in the room that Bradbury left a shurb time previously. These facts, taken one by one, leave no doubt that the fire took place in a room the means of access to which were in the hands of this man Bradbury. Where is the proof of mistaken identity? I refer to these circumstances for the simple reason that I do nob know and have to anticipate the arguments my learned friend may adduce. He may say that these circumstances cannot have much weight, and I may go to the other extreme, and say that while facts may lie, circumsttinces cannot, but I do nofc intend to go to that extreme. But when the circumstances are such as there cannot be any mistake about, I ask you, gentlemen, for the strongest possible conclusions drawn from these facts. The defence of arson, the wilful procurement of Mr Bradbury, was set up by the Insurance Company, and their consideration in setting up that defence i 3 a duty to the public. No case of greater importance could come before a jury. It concerns not only you and me, but every member of this community. You will notice that the rate for insurance we all pay is regulated by the average loss compared with the average profit, and if we have reasonable grounds for thinking this was nob a bona fide fire, it is our duty when defending the action to set up this defence. If there are nob substantial grounds for setting up this defence, let the Company receive no consideration. But I submit there are grounds in this case justifying the Insurance Company in coming forward ; there is a positive duty upon the Company, when they find a tire taking place undev these circumstances, to set up that defence. And, gentlemen, there is another very important fact to which I would direct your attention. Where is the insured ? Why did he nob come forward at that inquest? Why did he nob come and tell upon oath all that he know about the fire? Why, if business took him away, has he not returned now ? What can my learned friend say with regard to that ? The best answer I can think of is this: The young man got frightened, he did nob like the idea of facing a coroner's inquest, and so he has gone out of the colony, at the risk of you arriving afc any conclusion you like. My learned friend will ask you to draw a conclusion of perfecb innocence. Let us see what this Company had before it when ib set up this defence. Here is a man in business tor a vei'y short time—l shall refer by-and-by to the position he was in when he left here, namely the debts that he owed, which will, I think, lead to the irresistible conclusion that he must have put precious litble money into that venture. We have here an estimate of £200 or £300 given by his mother, and when some of you busimen look at a document that I shall show you by-and-by, you will be able to say whether he pub into the business anything like that sum ; in other words, if ib is not a case of bhis kind, that the Insurance Company, finding the stock would be over-insured at £800, refused to take a risk for more than £600. This young man enters business with very substantial credit, and he obtains goods on that credit, trusting to take up the bills as they become due. There is the evidence of Mr Skinner, gentlemen ; and what does Mr Skinner say? Not simply that he drew his conclusions. He investigated Bradbury's accounts, and found what his position was. Nob only this, bub he states that he showed Bradbury there was a deficiency of so much, and asked him whether he could account for it. An opportunity is given to Bradbury to account for ib, not simply once, or in any formal way. Ib is pub bo him again — he undertakes to prove it, and he cannot do so. What is the result of failure to explain this deficiency? It amounts to this, that during the four or five months during which he has been in business he has been loeing at the rate of something like £3 per week. Laying these faots broadly before any man, what conclusion can he come to ? Is there evidence of motive ? Yes, certainly ; you are doing losing business. Motive? Your bill* are comingdue. Motive? You have only somuch in hand, and you are unable to make things fib. Motive ? You sent goods away to Tauranga, which you were justified in doing, which you had a right to do, so long as you did not claim for these goods. But he says : " I did not put in any claim for these goods, and I did nob give the Insurance Company any claim upon me." " Inasmuch ac proposals were then pending, and, as we had nob issued the policy for those proposals, you allowed us to issue the policy without telling you of the removal of those goods." Bradbury says, " I'll go away and not send in any claim. You cannot have any hold upon me.andl leave the policy behindmefor others to do the very best they can." These are the facts that the Company had j before it when that defence was put upon the records. Let us look what thab defence establishes. It establishes this, and I do not know what conclusion can be drawn from bhis one facb:—Are you satisfied thab when thab fire took place not only was the front door locked, but likewise those two other doors ? If you are satisfied about that, are you sabisfied bhat bhe fire book place in that part or the house to which one man and no one else had access ? My friend has not suggested thab the fire was caused by any one of 'the other members of the family, and I would be the last to suggest anything of the kind. I accept the statements of the two girls that they remained in the sittingroom after their brothers left, until the smoke caused them to retire. Gentlemen, we are left simply to this : That bhe three keys of those three doors were in possession of Bradbury, and that nobody else could get access to thab part of the building where the fire took place. Now as to the fire in the kitchen. There is no doubb about there being a fire in the kitchen. The question is, who lib that fire? If it was found burning in the place deposed to by the two men, there were two fires burning in different parts of the building between which there was no connection at all. What my learned friend may say in explanation of this, or what theory he may advance, I know not; thab bhe fire came this way or that way, through bhe sbairs or from some sparks from below, I know not. If he should advance this theory, we have the evidence of the la°b wibness, Edith Bradburv,and I think/my friend would have been a little better if Edith Bradbury had not been called at all. She proved the extraordinary fact that although she reached that building, coming from bhe Pibt-sbreeb Wesleyan Church to the corner of Howesbreeb, bhab the fire had a good hold, that the firemen were trying to extinguish it, and yet it was then she saw some light or sparks go from the window below to sec fire to bhe cretonne curtains in the kitchen. Think, for one moment, what the different men were doing at this time. There is a man at the Fire Brigade Station, waiting to take the reel in his hand and run for bhe fire, and he gebs to the building in two minutes, and there are the arrived before them in order to see bhe cretonne curbains take fire. Now, with regard to the origin of the fire downstairs : Is ib a fact thab it took place in the showroom, or in the cupboard ? If it took place in one or the other, or in both, who was the last person proved definitely to have been in that part of the building? who is the last person thab appears to have been in that very show room ? who goes into that room to wash his hands and get his hat ? The answer to every one of these questions would be "Herbert Bradbury," Take every fact concerning the fire, and ask who could count for ib, and the answer, in every case must be "Herbert Bradbury," Now we come to these boards. Supposing the oretonne curtains bad taken fire,

and fallen on to the shelves under the window, and suppose that there was on each side of the window a cretonne curtain. Let us assume these curbains to catch fire, and as they burn they fall down. Will that account for that deep charring taking place in the middle compartment of the shelving ? How did they get in bo the middle compartment ? If the firekindlere were there we know what little light is required to sbarb them, bub bhe tVory that the cretonne curtains caugiiu i.r* from below, and that they seb fire to tho middle compartment, is incomprehensible. Edith Bradbury could nob have seen any curbains burning, and they could never have fallen inbo that middle compartment, for bhe reason thab the firemen must have been in the room before her. Take the evidence of Wayte, who went and saw the fire in the kitchen. He did not go into the lower storey. He first mounted upon the verandah, entered the sitting - room, and then crossed inbo bhe kitchen. The first thing that the men noticed was the fire in tho kitchen. He did not find fire in the room into which he firsb entered. He found the door of the kibchen shub, he pushed it open, and found a fire in the middle compartment of some shelving. Let us follow that man for one moment. Look how circumstantial his evidence is. He came out of that room, went and reported the matter to Mr Fenton, and returned with him, and you have both of them in the kitchen deposing to the burning of this fire. Then we have the man who took hold of these burning rags and threw them out of the window. Evidently the shelves were in compartments — and what is actually burnt ? Simply the middle compso-tmenb, the bobbom of bhe middle comparbmenb and likewise bhe two sides, of the curtains were burned, would they not fall upon the top of the shelving ? and we have the top of the shelving , not charred at all, the burning taking place only in the middle compartment. My friend was evidently very much impressed wibh bhe fact that there were two distinct fires in one place. My friend said thab Bradbury lefb the sibting-room, wenb down the passage, and did not go into the kitchen. I leave it to you, gentlemen, to say how long it would take any man to put a match into that third compartment. He leaves his sisters in the sittingroom, comes down bhis passage, pops inbo the kibchen and puts a match into that third compartment. He goes into the show-room, which is also his bedroom, on the pretence to wash his hands. The fire is laid there and the match applied, and what ? The fire takes place in a very few minutes. Let us apply these circumstancos in a broad way, and we find all these facts consistently eupport this theory that Bradbury set tire to thab building. Even tho sisters themselves noticed the smoke within five minutes of the man leaving the sittingroom. Do you believe thab the wibness Wayte is correct when he says thab the ashes in the kitchen fireplace were cold, and thab the water in bhe kettle was also cold ? He looks carefully to see whether there is any connection between bhe fireplace and bhe shelving, and he finds nothing. To make assurance doubly sure he pubs his hand into the water, and it is cold. Ib was a few minutes past seven when this took place. Therefore the bheory bhab the fire came from that fireplace is entirely exploded, Wayte then looks about to see if there were any signs of fire from anywhere below, and he finds nothing at all. Do you believe him ? that ia the question. Is there any reason for nob believing him ? Was he shaken in his cross-examina-tion ? Did he betray any inclination to exaggerate the facts ? And he is the first man that enters the kibchen. He leaves the kitchen by the same way t tha,b he enbers, going over the verandah, and returns wibh Mr Fenton. What takes place ? Then, a branchman is directed to play into this room and upon this lire that you are asked to believe originated in no other way than by sparks flying from the window below and setting fire to the cretonne curtains. Now what is there to say for Bradbury ? He does not accounb for himself, there is no alibi proved by him. I do nob in- | tend to give my experience of wibnesses. I would rabher leave you to draw your own conclusions. There is the tesbimonyof bhab man Fenton ; I'll put ib to anyone, could any evidence have been given in a more clear and lucid manner, or in a more disinterested manner than thab given by Fenfcon ? He was evidently sbationed there, almost wibh one arm in his coab, waibing for the alarm. He tells us in the most clear and circumstantial manner whab he found when he gob bhere. There was a fire raging in bhe showroom, and he direcbed a branohman to go there. His attention was then called to the front of the premises, and what takes place there ? He tells you thab the heab in the shop was so greab that the windows smashed as he was passing. He tells you with regard to his being spoken to by Wayte, and accompanying him to the kitchen. Is there any room for doubt about that man's statemenb? Did mv friend obtain from that witness one single facb that could cause a shadow of doubt upon what the men saw or upon what the men said ? Take Fenbon's evidence alone, and what is proved ? It is proved unmistakeably that the fire whs in the show-room, that both those doors were fast, and both those doors were locked, and no keys could be found in the doors ; ab any rate, there is no evidence before us- that the keys were found. Whab are we to conclude from finding these two doors locked, and no key in either of them ? Why does the man lock the doors and take the keys away with him? There is such a thing as being cautious and such a thing as being methodical, such a thing as having a room, and to close the ordinary doors. But what reason waa there for locking the doors and taking the two keys away ? There is another very singular fact that I must dravv your attention to. Coming to the witness Telford, I would now like to ask you to draw conclusions as to what he saw He was the first on the scene. He ran to give the alarm, and something may have happened while he was away, bub Telford is clear that he went in by the back door, and tried the inner door and ib would not open. He tried bo burst ib open, and found thab ib opened bowards him. He concluded thab the key must be on the inside. He smashes the glass and puts his hand through the opening, but he finds no key. I submit with regard toTelford's evidence, genblemen.thab ib is nob only clear thab this door was locked bub that the key was taken away. Now, what is his evidence with regard to the other door leading bo the showroom? It isequally conclusive. The glass portion of both doors required to be broken, and ib is beyond doubt that they retarded the men. That they had to stride over the wooden portion of these door 3 is also beyond doubt, and there is this fact, deposed to by Telford, that if he could have got that door open he could have extinguished the fire. Now to whab conclusion can you come? My friend will ask you to come to the conclusion : " Well, it does look very bad, but anybody could get to the fire, and that it was the man's habit to lock these doors." You are asked to accept this flimsy explanation : " It was his habit to lock the doors, and ib so happened that on this occasion the keys were taken away," If I were to ask you how a man would set fire to that building, what would you say ? He would take care to make the fire whore nobody could get to it j if in the showroom, that nobody oould get into the chow.-room ; if in the chop, he would take good care to look the doors in the shop. But what is bhe good of locking the doois if a man can put hla flab through the glass portion of the doors to tr.rn the key upon fche ether- side? The keys

must not be bhere. When 1 look the doors and take away the keya they must use their backs, or get a post or something of the kind to foro» open these doors. That gives me a better chance, and enables the fire to get a better hold of the building. Do you find those facts in this case ? If you find such facts what are we to do ? What is the thing that any reasonable man would do but draw conclusions? That is unless it is shown that there was someone else about the building, that someone else had access to that part of the building after the time when Herbert Bradbury left. There has been no attempt to show anything of the kind. There is no suggestion for one moment that anyone else had access to that building, or came in close proximity to it. I might then refer to another very important witness, Mr Field, captain of the Salvage Corps, and you will please bear in mind what his special duty was. He does nob pretend to speak as to the early acts that took place ; he comes upon the scene later to look after the salvage. We geb some very important evidence from Mr Field. Not only does he confirm the evidence given by other witnesses with regard to those doors, but belonging to the Salvage Corps it was his duty to take care of the salvage, and we, find that he remains on the premises for a considerable length of time. He had plenty of opportunities of seeing whab damage was done. Of course we do nob know how the shop was arranged. There might have been lines run across and flimsy light things spread upon the lines, but the fire came over the partition and it must have been very fierce, and very hot, and there must have been a lob of inflammable material in the shop to have caused the great amount of damage bhab was done when he arrived, Hβ tells you unmisbakeably that there were no keys in the doors, and that both of those doors were fast. He confirms Mr Fenton to the fullest extent in that respect. He went upstairs, buo could find no ttace of any connection between the tires. There was no trace of it having come through the stairs. We have not been told of any crevices in the stairs, we have heard nothing about any holes having been found in the sbairs. We hear nobhing aboub signs of smoke or flame coming through any crevices in tho stairs. Should we not have been told about it had such signs existed ? Would it nob have been one of the firsb things pointed oub by my learned friend ? Field then went into the kitchen, but could find no trace of any connection bebween the two fires —no trace of one having travelled to the ether. Then we have the wibness Collins. He tells us that he was sitting quietly wibh his wife, when he saw the smoke coming out of the back of the house. That he was withiu 11 feet of the show-room window. How could the fire have got there within five minutes of bhe time of Mr Bradbury leaving the house ? Whab was it that caused thab fire ? Could Mr Collins say >. There is the quesbion, gentlemen : How could the fire gob there unless it was wilfully pub there ? If ib was pub there, who didib? Was it done by one person, or more bhan ono?. Let us take the evidence of Mr Telfer on this ! matter, and I may toll you it is very strong. He tells usthat within 5 minutes of the alarm he saw smolie coming from under the door I of the shop. Ib was a large shop. Does not thab show that there muob have been a greab amount of fire to fill such a large shop ? Telfer further tells us that he ran down to the back of tho shop to see if he could gob inside the building, buc he found the door locked. Let me ask you if we are to believe these men. Are we to believe that men whose object is bo put out fires could have been mistaken with regard to those doors being locked ? Are wo to believe thab they were nob speaking the truth ? Whab was there ia the manner and demeanour of any of those witnesses when undor cross-examination to lead us to \ believe that they were not speaking the truth, or rather that they were mistaken, for it can scarcely be urged that those men were speaking what they knew was not true. It could not have been imagination. Those men were used to fires, and not likely to imagine that tho doors were locked—to imagine that they had to break the glass and climb through the holes they had made. Surely they cannob be mistaken on such points. Such being the caae, then, we must believe thab there was no means whatever of getting into thab parb of the building in which bhe fire was burning ; thab the means of getting there were clearly in the hands of Mr Bradbury. We will proceed a little further. Let us loojc for a rnomenb at bhe true meaning of this absence of Bradbury. I can well understand thab there may be those amongst us who may be more timid than others ; thab their sensitiveness may make them shrink from coming before the public in a oase ; men whose natures would make them shrink from an investigation like this. Bub is that excuse sufficient to accounb for the cause of Bradbury's absence? Bradbury was consulbing his golicibor. Are we to think thab between the 3rd and the 18bh he did nob consult a solicitor as to what course he should take ? He knew how far things had gone. He had already gone over his accounts wibh Mr Skinner. Ib had been pointed oub to him how things required to be explained. He had appointed a valuator and knew that the amount of loss had been ascertained. He had been told by the detective and Mr Skinner that he had better go through his books, as there were cerbain questions thab would require bo be answered. Mr Skinner told him that he would leave the books afc the South British office, so that he could get them and go through them so as to prepare an explanation. The books were lefb, but he did not call for them. Then, what was the meaning of that letter which he wrote to his mother ? He writes two v cheques and tells her whab they are for, and when we consider his brother's evidence, he tells us that all Bradbury went away for was because people spoke bo him about the fire, and because people suspected him. If he knew in his own mind that that fire was an honest thing he would say, " I can stand the light of day, for I know nobhing about ib. I was not bhere ab bhe time. I was, it may be, 150 yds along the road when it took place, and yet I am nob going to face the jury. I am conscious I wa3 the last person in the house. I know I was not succeeding in business. No, I cannot face this jury. There are reasons why I should go away." Gentlemen, if there were reasons why Mr Bradbury should go away, why are we not informed what those reasons were ? As we are not informed then we must draw our own conclusions. We cannob be asked on bhis occasion—Why have yoa nob charged Mr Bradbury with, arson ? That is the usual style in such cases. But we cannot be asked that in this case becauseweshouldsimplyreply, "Because he is not here." Thereforebhe onlythingthaban Insurance Company can do is to seb up bhis defence. Then there is another feature I must call attention to. First of all let me ask if it is established that Bradbury was not successful in business. That when he put down £1,200, his stock was not worth that amount. [Do you believe the statement of Mr Skinner that when he asked Mr Bradbury for an explanation he could not give it ? Not only that, but ib is evident thab Mr Bradbury did not keep his books with the greatest ot accuracy, for upon examination we find no account of the £140 worth of goods which he sent to Tauranga. He found that the bills owing to Messrs W. MoArthur and Co, were £107 10s, £36 7s Id, and £21 17s lid; to Messrs Macky, Logan and Co,, £37 7s 9d, and £11 Iβ 6d due on p.n,'s, and to Messrs Sargood, Ewen and Son, £21 17«7d,£195859d, £412 os6d, and £17210 a sd, Thab was Bradbury's position on the 18th February when he left Auokland, Even a,bfche appraisement? you find fchafe Brad--

bury had not) fche assets teaneetthflsedebta due. &<? h&d abetiii i&O6 lit the pam, bafe he drew two ehegues, ones ie* £18 fetf Messrs Sargood, JSw&a abd Sob. and £80 ht jftfaa Bradbury, hk m&tbef. Thafi }«fe» email; balance to his etedifc in the batik, Hew t&afc i ia the state o£ things vri»oa he we&fc &w»y. He appears to have sold sonic of bis goods after the tire, bat what be did t/ith the; money we know , not Thai was J&ra4bury's position on the 3rd of February. It ie £or you, gentlemen, to cay what a man fa each a position would be acfeaated to do. With bad prospects for 6h« future what/ chance was there for him 1 W hub was the outlook but bad ? Therefore he is in this position : If I cannot c&ri'y on lay business wha-t is my salvation ? It will be to convert the goods into money that I can carry away. If you want motive, gentlemen, I say there is a motive euggeebed by the facts. Sow we come to those two cheques. Ido not know what interpretation is te be put upon that act. Is it not significant that one of those cheques wae drawn out to meet a bill due on the Ist of March ? That looks as if he did not intend to be present on the Ist of March. Ido nob wish to press unduly upon you, gentlemen, but I must draw your attention to the letter which was forwarded to Bradbury's mother in company with those two cheques. What does | his mother say about that letter ? She burnt it because it was no useand contained nothing of interest. For some reason best known to herself she burnt that letter. What conclusion can we draw from such facts ? That there was something in that letter which must be hidden. The last witness told us that Mr Bradbury had been heard of since the inquiry. That is a most important fact. Why is he not here ? The fire inquiry was over. His time for examination had gone by. If that letter conbained the reason for Mr Bradbury going away, why are we not told ib ? Therefore we have this most important fact —thab since the inquesb a letter has been received, bub we have nob seen it. The only conclusion was, gentlemen, that his absence was caused because he was sensitive aboub the jury. But surely it does not continue all the time before this case came ou. Why does it take him so long to get over his sensitiveness? What are we to think ? Simply that there was a reason for his absence, which reason is consistent wibh the whole theory set up by the defence, that the fire was started by Herbert Bradbury. Does not that explain the whole of the facts ?

His Honor here interrupted the counsel. He said, " I know you do not wish to misstate to the jury, Mr Hesketb, but I must point oub thab while we have beon balking as if the 11th _ provision did make such a condition, still it does nothing of the kind. It has nothing to do with it. It simply states that it should be in accordance with the statement of the loss."

Mr Hesketh continued : I must thank His Honor for drawing my attention to this statement, which I had overlooked. I do not wish to mislead you, gentlemen, but there is no statement of the loss of _ the insured. Thab also requires to be verified before a Justice of the Peace, bub we have no such statement. You know as well as I do that the Insurance Company has a right to have that. If bhe Company stipulates to the insurer, you must put in your statement of loss and verify it by declaration before a Justice of the Peace. They had a right to have it. Surely thab is a fair condition ! Now, tie Company says, " Give us your declaration ; we hu've nobhing to do with you until you do so." To this moment the Insurance Company is without that, and it is a very right condition, and should be required, as it stimulates insurers to care, and prevents fraud. Instead of giving us this declaration, what does Mr Bradbury do ? Instead of putting in his claim he goes out of the country. Nob even a claim _ has been pub in for him, much less the verified statement. Therefore we ask for our right to the statement of loss and statutory declaration. Ib may be thab a waiver will be claimed, bubl subniib, gentlemen, that there could be no waiver, as there was no breach then. The 15 days had nobgone by before this appraisement book place. Therefore there was nothing ab all for the Insurance Company to waive. The learned Judge has consented to give the fullest.scope, and to reserve any legal points for argument if necessary, therefore I will not go into that matter. If the learned Judge should put before you a question as to whether there was any waiver as regards the time to put in the claim I shall aek you to reply in the negative. Now, as to what will be left to the jury, I understand His Honor to say that the day for strict law has gone by, so long as j substantial compliance has been given to the creditors. But I contend that there can be no substantial compliance unless Mr Bradbury comefa forward with his statement as to what were his losses, and declares to its truth. How do we know but thab if he were here and making his proof of loss, he mighb not claim for goods belonging to his mother and not to himself ? Therefore it is necessary bhat the statement Bhall be put in. When he does so, the Company can reply as to whether it is fair or not. Let us look at the action of the Insurance Company in this matter. They had not encouraged him to insure for a much larger amount than his stock justified. On the other hand, the Company cut down his proposal by £200 and a policy was issued within three days of the time when the fire took place. Did the Company put any opposition in the way? No ! Quite the contrary. It said " Don't let us wait for the fifteen days to expire. Let us go to work at once and bring the matter to a conclusion as quickly as possible by ascertaining the amount of loss." Why were formal proofs put in afterwards, both on account of Mr Bradbury and Mrs Bradbury, if it was nob that my learned friend felt that they were necessary and must be put in ? Therefore, nobhing whatever can be imputed to the Insurance Company with regard to the present action and the payment we arfe aeked to make. I confidently leave the matter in your hands, gentlemen, believing that you will find a verdictfor the defendant.

The Court then adjourned. [The continuation of this case will be found on the eighth page.]