LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7896, 15 March 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

DISTRICT COURT.— [Before H. G. Both Smith, Esq., Distiict Judge.] Robinson v. Australian Mutual Livr Stock Insurance Company.—Hie Honor delivered judgment in this case to the following effect:— this oaee a bone wan insured against lose by death for the turn of £60 by a policy dated 30th May, 1885. for a period extending from 19th May, 1885, to 19 th May, 1886. One of the condition* was that all premiums after the first, should be paid on or before the day on which they should become due, otherwise the policy would expire at 12 o'olook noon. At noon on the 19th May, 1886, the horse was alive and not known to be injured. No premium for renewal was paid or tendered, either before or after that time. The horse was subsequently found with its leg broken. From the appearance of the injury, as described in the evidence, the jury have found, as a fact, that the injury was sustained before noon on the 19oh May. The injury was such as to render the animal valueless/ and its destruction necessary. One view of the oase may be put shortly in this way. The insurance was against loss by death, and the policy expired while the horse was still alive, ergo there was no loss by death, and consequently no liability by defendant. The horse bad, however, received its death wound before that time. If the analogy of human life insurance were to govern this case, that faot would be immaterial, vide Lockyerv. OflUy L, J.R. There is, however, one resp«ot in which the analogy fails —the contract of life insurance is not a contract of indemnity, but a ooctraot to pay a ' certain sum if a certain event happens, during the currency of the policy, viz. the death of the aieured. If the policy expire and the insured be still alive, although in artloalo mortis, the condition has not been fulfilled, and the insurance company is not liable. The analogy of marine insurance, however, is more to the point. His Honor then quoted a number of authorities, and said the principle to be derived from them seemed to be that where a partial loss has been sustained during the currency of the polioy for whioh the insurers are liable to recompense the injured, that liability is not removed by the faot of the partial loss becoming a total lose after the expiration of the p«lloy. Thie principle seems to me to militate strongly against the plaintiff's position. Here the polioy is egaiaat lose by death, and therefore until death ensues no liability attaches to the insurers. As for the authority of Mr. Bennett, I feel satisfied the verdict of the jury was wrong. By the rales of practice of this Court the verdict of the jury must be given effeot to, or oan only be ■et aside by a new trial, otherwise I should have do hesitation in ignoring the finding of the jury, and giving judgment for defendant. I must therefore direct a stew trial on this point. The questions at issue are, (1) Had Mr. Bennett any authority as local manager of the company after a polioy of insurance had expired by rffluxion of time, and the contract was at an end, to create a new contract without requiring any premium to be paid, or making accessary inquiries, or going through any of the forms usually made ? Assuming that Mr. Bennett had each authority what loss or injury has the plaintiff sustained ? The horse was so injured that it must have been destroyed whether Mr. Bennett said yes or no. In my opinion the findings taken as a whole in this branch of the cane were arrived at in direot opposition to the evidence. There must therefore be a new trial on these two points:— Whether Mr. Bennett had authority to bind the society under the circumstance*. (2) Whether the society are estopped by Mr. Bennett's conduos from deayifig their liability. On the application of Mr. Cooper his Honor decided that the defendant should pay for the jury, as the plaintiff had already twice done so. The date ef the trial was fixed for the 26th of April aext. Mouth New Zealand Woollen Company v. Styak.— Claim £54 for calls. Mr. l'heo. Cooper, instructed by Mr. Jackson, appeared for the plaintiff*, and Mr. Thomas Cotter, instructed by Mr. Alexander, for the del ldatit. Mr. Cooper stated that the aocioa was for allotment money and calls in respect of 100 shares allotted to defendant in the plaintiff Company. The defence raised several important question*, and Mr. Cooper quoted at length a number of authorities upon the various points involved. He fully discussed he law bearing on the points, and the evidence the Company were prepared to bring, and stated that this would be of a somewhat particular nature, as if unsuccessful in this oase before this Court, he proposed to aak the Court for liberty to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal. Mr. Orchard and Mr. styak, the defendants, and Mr. Bennett were examined for the plaintiff. Mr. Bennett's oross-examination was not conoluded when the Court rose at 4.30 p.m. # POLICE COURT.-Monday. (Bifore'Meeen. O. D. Whitcombe and J. P. Kins', J.P.'e.) Dbunke.nnbss.Six persons were punished for this offence. Annie Vesey, for a second appearance, was fined 10e and costs, or fortyeight hours. Frederick Morgan was fined 20e and costs, or seven days' hard labour, and Henry Drintdale wai fined 10* and costs. Dim aging Prison Property; — Kate Hinch for dninkenneas, and also breaking a cell bucket, valued at ss, was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment with hard labour, or 20s and oosts. Disturbing the Salvation Army.—Hugh Gibson was charged with being drank and disorderly in Albert street, and also with disturbing the Salvation Army servioe in their barraoks in Albert-ntreet on March 13. The aoouied admitted both charges, but pleaded drunkenness. Dr. Laishley appeared for the prosecution., and stated that there was also another charge of assault against the accused. It was a very gross oase indeed, and the Salvation Array were very reluctant to prosecute, bat it was necessary that order should be sustained in the meetings. Some time ago a man named Donaldson had been before the Court, and was fined, and bound over to keep the peaoe. I 1 seemed that it was a put-up affair, out of revenge in that oase, and Gibson had gone into the barracks to create another disturbance. He had forced his way into the aisles, and taking up a fighting attitude had struck out without the slightest provocation, and inflioted severe blows upon the doorkeeper, David Cromarty. He used most profane language, breaking up the prayer meeting, and bringing it to a olose. Under the circumstances he (Dr. Laishley) suggested to the Benoh to inflict a similar penalty to that imposed in the case of Donaldson. The evidence of David Cromarty, L»mpton Gladding, and Nellie Barnard, captain of the army, was taken. The accused called John Brame, who gave evidence in regard to his previous good conduet for three years as a member of the army. The Benoh considered that the Caen was one that needed the full penalty of the law to suppress snob conduct. In their opinion the Act did not provide sufficient punishment for auoh oases. If the Salvation Army conducted their meetings with more decorum by not enoonraging such noisy music in their meetings, and lees demonstrative processions, headed by flaming torches and dashing of ; music, there would be less cause of complaint ! by them. But as the Army were a part of the inhabitants of the city they were as much entitled to protection as the rest of the com munity. The accused wonld be fined £5 and costs, or one month's hard labour, for being drunk and disorderly, and £5 and costs, and to be bound over for twelve months to keep the peace in sureties of £25 each and hie own recognisances of £50. The accused asked for time till tomorrow, Tuesday, to pay the fine, but the Bench peremptorily replied that it must he paid at once. There was a charge of assault against the aooueed, but the Bench said the charge of drunk and disorderly covered that charge, and therefore would not be proceeded with. Disturbance at Papakura. — Edward Grant pleaded guilty to using obsoene language at Papakura on Saturday. It seemed that the case was a gumdigger's row, in which several men were trying to get his money. The Bench dismissed the charge. LtROKNY from a Till,—Henry Ward, a youth, was charged with the larceny of Is 7d, the money of Solomon Reid. On the application of Sergeant Pratt the charge was remanded till Tuesday, to allow the Probation Officer to make inquiries into the character of the accused. I Appropriating a Canary.—Charles Rodwell was charged with stealing a canary and cage, valued at Bs, the property of Elias Robinson, on March 12. Mr. C. E. Madden appeared for the defence. Elias Robinson deposed that the accused entered his shop on Saturday, and' took away the cage and bird in Court. Witness warned the accused not to take the bird. He would give information to the police. There bad been an arrangement that the accused

was to make a net for a snaring expedition, when the accused was to have received a oanary and the first day's catching. Constable Rowlea deposed to arresting the accused, who protested that be would not give up the bird. A scuffle ensned when he tried to take the bird. It was the woman who was living with Rod well. She tried to kill the bird before it was secured. The defence was that the bird and cage were taken as a matter of right, and that there was no felonious intent in the oase. The arrangement was that Rod well should make a net, and that, in return, he was to make him a present of the first day's oatohing, and a canaty and oage. The Bench considered that it would not be right to have it go forth that a man could go and seize property without being justified in doing so. Fined 10s and costs, or forty-eight hours' hard labour in default. Alleged Embezzling.—Frank Nicholson was oharged with embezzling the sum of £5, the moneys of Henry Webb, on March 7. On tbe application of Mr. J. O'Meagher, the case was remanded till Tuesday. Withdrawn. — William Oliver, on remand, was charged with stealing a sledgehammer, valued at 12s, the property of Francis Forster. Mr. A. B. Whitaker, on behalf of the prosecution, applied to have the charge withdrawn, as it was olear that the sledge-hammer was the accused's property. Mr. Bigby, for the defence, said they were prepared to establish that. Withdrawn accordingly. Risooing A Horsk.—Timothy Hayes, on remand, was oharged with reaouing a bay mare when in custody of John Lupton, the ranger of the Mount Roskill Road Board. Mr. E. Mahony proseouted. The ciroumstanoes in this oase were these :—The dtfen dant had been in the habit of grazing his horses upon the rofcds. On Sunday, February 27, Lupton seized a number of horses, including one of Hayes'. It was on the Three Kmga Road, and Hayes coming along to find hie horse, seized it. He came provided with a couple of stones, one of which he fired at the ranger, who was mounted on horseback. The consequence was that he had to allow Hayes to take his horse, to save losing the other horses. It was not the first occasion that defendant had taken his horses away when in custody of the ranger. The Bench imposed a fine of £5 and coats. [Before Meesri. I. Thompson and B. Stevenson, j.p.'i.) Neighbours' Quibbels. —Cross informations between Donald MoDonald and Riohard Loverock (of Sllerslie), for using insulting language on February 25, were called. Mr. J. O'Meagher appeared for MoDonald, and Mr. Franklin for Loverook. After hearing the evidence, the Bench dismissed the cases, each party to pay their own ooeta.