The Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, JULY 13, 1868. SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume III, Issue 163, 13 July 1868, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, JULY 13, 1868. SUPREME COURT.

Monday, July 13. (Before^his Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) The Civil Sittings of the present Assizes commenced this morning at 10 o'clock, the only cause for trial being the action Trimbie v. the New Zealand Insurance Company, arising out of the fire which originated in the Masonic Hotel, on the 7th of November last. The following gentlemen answered to their names, and were empannelled as a Special Jury: — F. Ivellinir, J. Beniley, A. S. Braithwaite, J. Burnett, j. Beit, H. Williams, VY. Goubton, J. Pearson, J. R. Dodson, E. Davidson, VV. fc?. Mortimer, Thus. Cawthron,Esiirs. Mr. Connolly, with Messrs. Pitt and Kingdon, appeared for the plaintiff ; Dr. Combe, instructed by Mr. D. Sinclair, for t ..c defendants. The Registrar then read the issues, which were as follows : — l. Did tlie defendant insure the stock in trade, fixtures, utensils, and furniture of the plaintiff as in the plaintiff's declaration alleged? 2. Were the said stock in trade, fixtures, utensils, and furniture, or any part thereof destroyed by fire during the subsistence of the said insurance as in the declaration alleged? 3. What was the value of the insured goods and property of the plaintiff destroyed by the said fire? 4. Did the plaintiff within IS days after the alleged loss deliver to the defendants as particular an account of the alleged loss or damage as the nature of the case admitted of, according to the said condition in that behalf endorsed on the said policy? 5. Did the plaintiff after the alleged loss make proof of his accounts or other proper vouchers of the alleged loss and daraage according to the said condition in that behalf endorsed on the said policy? 6. Did there appear to be any fraud, overcharge, imposition, or misrepresentation by the plaintiff to the defendants of his alleged loss or damages as in the defendant's first plea alleged? 7. Did the fire in the declaration mentioned happen by the procurement, means, or connivance of the plaintiff within meaning of the 11th condition endorsed on the said policy. Mr titt opened the proceedings by reading the declaration, which showed that the action was brought to recover £649 7s. 10d,, the amount of an insurance effected on thp stock, furniture, &c, of the Masonic Hotel, effected in December, ISfcio, and renewed in the same month in 1866. Mr Connolly then entered at length, into the details of the case, and concluded by stating that the defendants had confined themselves to pleading that the plaintiff had made a fraudulent representation of the amount of his claim, and that the fire was of wilful origin, until the eleventh hour, when they had raised the technical objection that he did not make his claim within the epecified time. Mr Kingdon then called the first witness, Joseph Trimble, who stated that he was tenant of the Masonic Hotel in November last, which he entered about July, 1865, having purchased the stock and furniture of the former tenant, Mr W. Taylor, for £700, the stock being then worth £40 or £50, the remainder representing the furniture. Receipt was produced signed by Taylor, with consent of the landlord, Mr. Field, who held a bill of sale over the stock, furniture, &c. , and to whom the money was paid. The witness then put in other additional furniture, of the value of £120. The policy of insurance, effected in the following December, was then produced. The billiard table and fittings were removed in October shortly before the fire, to Westporfc, where the defendant had another hotel, When witness was last in the Masonic Hotel, the furniture was all in good order and condition, and he left his muther-in-law, Mrs. Wilson, ii charge of the house, with Stephen Taylor to look after the bar. He then went down to Westport, and there received a telegram informing him that the house had been destroyed by fire, and he came on to Nelson by the first boat, when lie was shown the goods which had been saved from the fire. Ha then sent in a claim to the Messrs. Curtis, the agents of the Company, the letters which passed on this occasion being produced. On the 22ud December he proffered his claim, as made up, to Messrs Curtis. Mr Herbert Curtis inquired who made out this claim, aud on learning that it was Mr Bryant, he said that the very fact of its having been made out by him, caused them to view it with suspicion. It was also stated that the claim was made informally, not having been made before the Resident Magistrate. Witness then handed the claim to Mr Curtis, who said ' That will do now, that's all right.' Mr Curtis afterwards informed him that he had written to the directors of the company in Auckland, and that he declined to pay the amount until he got a letter from them; and he afterwards stated that the directors refused to pay unless in compliance with an order of the Supreme Court. Witness had not the slightest idea how the fire originated, and certainly did not connive at setting the house, on fire, and had never thought of such a hing. Witness had been compelled to pay rent for the house since the fire, and still did so. The house was now closed, until it was finished, and he was still paying the licence for it. He was satisfied that he should have lost in the three months, March, April, and May, through the fire, £120, even if he recovered this action. Cross-examined by Dr. Combe : Had been 14

years in the police. Never kept any accounts, but believed that the barman kept some. Had bejn at Westport for flve months before the fire. Did not remember having anj* conversation with th** bagman previous to Taylor, as to the profits accruing from the hotel. The house was doing very badly when ho purchased it from Taylor. The witness uii'kr'V-it si long cross-exninina-tion witli a view to prove that his statement thafc he had placod £I*2o worth of furniture in tho hotel after becoming its tenant, was incorrect, raid also to test his statement as to the value of the stock in the house at the time of the fire, byarriving at the disposal of certain wines und other stores, purchased shortly before the fire, but the witness's memory proved somewhat defective on these points. The Court adj rmrned nt 2 o'clock until a quarter to 3, vi* hen tlie examination of the witness Trimble was continued.