MAGISTARTE’S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 291, 13 November 1912, Page 3

MAGISTARTE’S COURT.

NAPIER. (Before Mr. S. E. McCarthy. S.M.) YESTERDAY. A CLAIM FOR INSURANCE. The case. Catherine Jane Cook v. the Queensland Insurance Company, a claim for £75 alleged to be due a:: the amount of a policy on her furniture which was destroyed by fire at Mestshore on July 6th, was concluded at the Magistrate's Court. Napier, yesterday. Plaintiff gave eiidence that she was the wife of Joseph Crook. She signed the insurance proposal and policy. In reply to Mr. Gleeson she stated that she was not the wife of Joseph Couk when she signed the policy. She became the lawful wife of Cook o.i October 7. In the proposal she had signed herself as his wife as she was ashamed to let anyone know she was not. To Mr. Dolan : She had left hei previous husband (Hayward) onlv when slie found out that he wa:. mairied. Flic w. at lo Cook who agreed to marry her as soon as sinhad obtained a divorce from Hayward. Eryl Pitt, manager of the company. said that on July 10 the claim was received and on the 22nil it was rejected. On July 21 he received ;; summons in connection with the ca-e. Had he known'Mrs. Cook was m>: married to Cook before he gave her the policy he would in all probability have rejected it, for insurance companies had to contend with a moral hazard. In New Zealand tinmoral hazard was very large. Mr. Dolan: Thank you! (Laugh ter.) Continuing, witness said the eoinpany had to be very careful as to the character of an applicant for a policy. The reason they pair] L‘so on Cook’s house was because the company always tried to treat a mortgagee fairly. lo Mr. Dolan: They weia not competing with the Government for the business and protection of the mortgagees. (Laughter.) He did not think the high morality of the company descended on women alone and allowed men to go scot free. Mr. Dolan : They were poor people ! Tlie S.M. said that if when the woman made the statement in question to the company, the manager was aware it was not true that she was the lawful wife of Cook, then it could hardly be called fraudulent. Judgment was reserved. CLAIM FOR EXTRAS. Player Bros. v. A. McArthur, claim JCA/7 ti. Mr. Lusk for plain tiff, Mr. Dunn for defendant. Plaintiff’s claim was for work done in connection with a building, such work being authorised by defendant, but which was not mentioned in the specifications drawn up in connection with the contract. Evidence was given by Leslie Player and James Taylor, an inspector for the Hawke’s Bay Building Society, ami by A. McArthur. SEPARATION ORDER. The, wife of John Brittain applied for a separation from her husband on the ground of persistent cruelty. Mr. Dolan appeared on behalf of Mrs. Brittain, who appeared in court accompanied by her three children. Sergeant Cummings said it was no use trying to find a surety for Brittain as no one would go surety for him. The S.M. granted a separation, and made an order for the payment of £‘2 per week by Brittain for the support of his wife and three children.