STOCK DESTROYED BY FIRE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 71, 17 December 1926, Page 13

STOCK DESTROYED BY FIRE

ACTION AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANY. A retrial of an action in which James Lan", draper, of Wellington, proceeded .against the New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd., seeking the sum cf £750 in settlement of an alleged contract of insurance entered into between the parties, l>eran at the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Ostler and a special U first rame before the Court a verdict for plaintiff for the full amount was returned by the jury. On the ground that the _ verdict was against the weight of evidence, however, the defendant company applied tor a new trial, which application was granted by the Supreme Court. In the trial yesterday plaintiff was represented by Mr. R. Kennedy, w!th him Mr. W. Heine, while Mr. H. L. Johnston, with him Mr. C. A L. Treadwell, conducted the case for the defendant company. ... , . The statement of claim set out that by a contract of insurance made at Otaki on December 16, 1022, the company granted him an insurance against fire in the sum of £750 on certain draper’s stock-in-trade. It was claimed that at the time the cover i ote was issued, and when the goods v ere lost by fire, plaintiff was interested in the stock-in-trade insured to the amount of the insurance. On December 18, 1922, said plaintiff, the etock-in-trade was destroyed by fire, and bis loss as a consequence exceeded £750. The company, however, had not paid the sum, and plaintiff asked the Court to award him the sum of £750. . In opening bis case, Mr. Kennedy asked the jury particularly to bear in nnnd that an agent had called upon plaintiff quite unsolicited and personally in-, spected the stock. By way of defence it was stated that the' contract of insurance referred to was preceded by a written proposal for insurance signed by plaintiff. This contract had been entered into by the company in reliance upon the I ruth of the representations and statements of the plaintiff which it contained. Tn this proposal plaintiff stated that he was the owner of the goods referred to. and bad applied for a policy of insurance in order to cover bis interest, in them. Tt was claimed, however, that plaintiff was not at the time cf the proposal the owner of the goods insured. The plaintiff had ftated that the cash value of the goods was £1695. lint the defence claimed that their cash value was very much less than that. By reason of several material misdescriptions made by plaintiff, it was claimed that the contract was void. Plaintiff had verbally represented that he was the owner of the goods to i e insured. This was at the time known by plaintiff to lie untrue. The case will be coutin.icd this morning.