SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.

Evening Star, Issue 12965, 9 November 1906, Page 8

SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.

(Before His Honar tho Chief Justice.) AN' I.VSrEAXCE CLAIM. In lire case Robert Mori and Alexander- ' Dam-:, v. tho Norwich Union Insurance' Gon p.-ny, claim £2OO, on a, tire insurance; policy, heard yesterday afternoon, evidence for the plaintiffs was given by the plaintiffs, Thomas Brown, Clement Henry Beck, and Thomas Henry Lamb (tinsmiths), Albert Ernest Gascoigne (solicitor), and Archibald Wallace Stables (salesman for the New Zealand Hardware Company). Mr Adams, in opening the case for tho defence, stated that if the stateirenls put before tho Court were to l>e credited entirely it would, no doubt, be a difficult matter for the company to prove their case, but on the other hand evidence would be given which must satisfy the Court that the facts were different, and that representations had been made which were not true, and which -voided, the policy. Tl» main allegations on which he relied were that a proposal had been made to the United Insurance Company, and also to the State Fire Insurance Department, both of which had been concealed from the defendant company at the time when the proposal was made. Secondly, that the plaintiff in making his proposal had made certain untrue statements to the company, upon the faith of which the policy had been issued Defendant further alleged that the claim made by the ph.intiff. after the occunouce of the fire, was false and fraudulent He would ]>oint out that certain articles whi'-h were represented as having been on the premises at the tunc of the fir- were not in effect there, but were included in the claim fraudulently. Evidence would also be called to show that plaintiffs were jointly interested m this matter, and he would suggest that the real transaction was a joint transaction m which either party was interested and affected bv what was done by the other. It would also bo- shown that the facts as to the State fire insurance were that the proposal was made and refused before a proposal was made to the defenchuitcompanv. Evidence was given by Maurice Harry Priest (clerk at tlie Norwich I. mon Company), after which the case was adjourned to Saturday.