FIRE AND THEFT STAGED

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 June 1936, Page 10

FIRE AND THEFT STAGED

INSURANCE CLAIM DISMISSED LONDON, April 28. "From beginning to end it/ was a tradulent claim,” said Mr. Justice ! Branson in the King's Bench Division yesterday in dismissing an action by ) Abraham Shoot. Mr. Shoot claimed £4.000 under an i insurance policy for loss by fire and burglary at a watchmaker’s and jeweller's shop in High-street, Whitechapel. Mr. Shoot the owner of the business alleged that on the night of Dec. 23, J9:;i. his premises were safely secured and a burglar-alarm system specified in the insurance policy was put into operation. Next morning three safes had been opened, stock had been removed, there had been a fire in the basement, and a water pipe had burst.| The defendant was Mr. Harold Babihgton Hill, an underwriting member oi Lloyd’s, who. with other underwriters. had shared the insurance risk. He contended that there was no burglary or fire which would make him liable. Giving judgment, Mr. Justice Branson said that the burglar alarm could not have been left in working order on the night of Dec. 23. '

“That puts me in a position to make an end of the plaintiffs case.” continued Mr. Justice Branson, “because it is a co.ndil.i’on of his policy that at the time of closing the insured pre- : raises the alarm shall have been put into full and proper operation. The only conclusion he could draw from the evidence was that, if there really was a thief, it was one of the most mysterious burglaries that, had ever taken place. Mr. Shoot and his witness had lied in the witness-box regarding the burglar alarm, and that had its reactions upon the amount, of confidence which could be placed upon the evidence oii other questions. He came to the conclusion that it. was a case where an appearance of entry into the shop and the theft, of goods had been staged, and that there was nothing in the shape of a robbery from the shop at, all. Judgment was entered for Mr. Hill.