FIRE LOSS CLAIM

Northern Advocate, 2 November 1931, Page 8

FIRE LOSS CLAIM

FARMER’S FALSE STATEMENT. SENTENCE DEFERRED. (Special to "Northern Advocate.’’) WELLINGTON, Saturday. Further evidence about a mysterious fire on a dairy farm at Ohariu [Valley, near Jolmsonville, which was the subject of a recent criminal case, was heard in the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice MacGregor, and a jury. The owner of the farm, Gilbert Hamilton McMeeking, was charged with making a false declaration of his fire loss and with obtaining money from the State Fire Office. Mr Evans-Scott, for the Crown, said McMeeking had applied to the State Fire Office for a cover against fire loss on the contents of a shed on his farm. He gave particulars of the articles in the shed, and among them were included a 60-gallon separator with a ;}• horse-power motor attached. When the inspector went to the farm to check up the articles that were covered, an alteration was made and a manure sower was included in the list. On March 2H, a policy was issued by the company and the total .value of the cover amounted to £4OO. On April 16, a fire occurred in the shed concerned in the policy and all the articles in the shed were claimed by McMeeking to have been destroyed. McMeeking assured the inspector that all the articles had been destroyed, although at that time he knew that the separator, motor and the manure sower were perfectly safe. On April 22, continued counsel, McMeeking saw his solicitor and made a declaration of fire loss. The Company, on May 8, paid tlu-j solicitor on behalf of McMeeking a sum of £4OO. Detective .Tarrold executed a search warrant at the farm some time afterwards and found the separator working in the new dairy. McMeeking admitted straight away that it had not been burned. As a matter of fact, said Mr Evans-Scott, Detective Jarrold had been at the farm at the time the shed was on fire, and had himself assisted to carry th ( e separator out of the burning building. Later, in an interview, McMeeking admitted that the manure sower had not been destroyed. The defence was that McMeeking had acted in a bona-fide manner in making the declaration and obtaining the money from the insurance office. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. McMeeking was remanded for sentence.