TE KUITI HOTEL FIRE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20901, 17 June 1931, Page 11

TE KUITI HOTEL FIRE.

INSURANCE. ON CONTENTS. CLAIM UNDER £SOO POLICY* COMPANY DISPUTES LIABILITY. • .' ' T •' ■; VALUATION OF FURNITURE. [FSOM OtXE OWN COEEESPONDENT.] • • HAMILTON, r Tuesday." The contesting ofclaim rof-.ilmnif- ; ance on the contents of the Grand Hotel, Te Kuiti, which was destroyed by. fire'on Auguiit 8, 1930, led to an action heard before Mr. Justice Hurdman in the .-Hamilton Supreme Court to-day. Edith Halford, widow, Te Kuiti (Mr. ;E. •, M. ' Mackersey), was the plaintiff, anj she claimed £SOO from the New Zealand Insurance Company,. Limited (Mr. J. F. Strang and. Mr. S. D. E. Weir), being the amount- for which the contents of - the | hotel were insured. ' ; -i •• •For the defence it was stated that .the plaintiff made a false declaration with respect,to the ownership and the value/of the contents of the building. Jt was contended that<she did not comply .with the clause in the policy requiring her to furnish full, details of where she had purchased the furniture and the. prices, she had paid. Further, it was stated tHat Mrs. Halford .had declared that she was the' sole owner of the goods insured, whereas she was not, and that she had made a greatly exaggerated claim and had made no mention of the interest of the Grand Hotel Company in the furniture.' ■The defendant company entered a coun-ter-claim seeking an order' declaring; that the plaintiff had forfeited all bisnefits under the policy, that'the policy was nflll and. void, and that defendant was. under no liability to the plaintiff in' respsct to thfi policy. Evidence o! Plaintiff. Mr. Strang- observed that the company considered that this was a case which in thi» public interest should be thoroughly investigated by reason of the. unsatisfactory circumstances which surrounded the fir a and the claim.. The plaintiff, ..Edith Halford, gave evidence that her husband, Ralph Edward Halford, bought the lease of the Grand Hotel, Te Kuiti, in 1923. The lease had then seven years to run. He paid the vendors £2BOO for. the goodwill, furniture, crockery and cutlery. The buildinj; was a very old one, and . was then owned by John Hetit, a Maori chief. Some of the furniture was quite good, while a large quantity was worn out and was unfit for further use.

After taking possession her • husband spent £4OO on refurnishing the annexe, an apartment of ten rooms, £IOO oil eiderdowns, and other sums on the main part, cf the house. Her husband conducted the' business in, connection with -.the .■ purchases, and she did not know the exact prices paid for replacing the furniture.' When her husband died in October, 1926," the Public Trustee had the contents. of the hotel valued, and he had : the furniture insured for £450 and the groceries for £.30 with,the defendant company. Mrs. Halford said she declared the cash, value of the furniture covered by this policy at £6OO. •Witness said when her husband purchased the lease from Barraud and Abraham in 1923 the furniture that good had been put in by Barraud and Abraham. The remainder was old and . dilapidated, and a large quantity of it was discarded. She and her husband replaced the old furniture and blankets. When Mr.-Forbes, the company's assessor,. questioned hei* after the fire, she told him wh6re the new goods had been. purchased. She also told him that the .records , had been burned in the fire. - > Inventory After Fire. . After the. fire she forwarded an inventory of her property to Mr. Forbes, and pat down her . loss at £1328. She 1 thought this was a very reasonable valuation; and still thought so. • Cross-examined, witness said her'husband paid all accounts, while she managed' the staff. Her husband bought new furniture between 1923 and the time of his death in 1926, and after that time she herself bought new furniture. She had no idea how much she spent.. Mr. Strang questioned witness in. regard to the valuation and inventory taken of the contents of the hotel in 1926 by the valuer on behalf of the Public Trustee, subsequent to her husband's death. Witness said in that inventory there were 13 iron bedsteads. There were 39 bedsteads in the inventory made after the fire.. She could nob understand why the-valuer did" rot include the whole lot. There were. 49 rooms in the hotel. Witness said she're-' gavded herself as the owner ■of all. the furniture in the hotel with the exception■ of a few* articles, the value of which was £2O 18s.

Dispute Not Unexpected. Witness said she knew there would : ba a dispute as- to what furniture was . hers and what furniture belonged'to the hotel company. She realised when she- made the 'declaration' of loss that • some' of the articles enumerated in the declaration did-not belong to her. The schedule was prepared from memory and, she assessed the values herself. In May, 1928, when she insured the chattels, she assessed-the value of the furniture which belonged to her at £6OO. Witness was. required, to give up possession of the hotel: and tha' Grand Hotel Company's furniture on September 1, 1930. Mr. Gibbs, tha. newlessee, valued the hotel furniture at.£lso just before the fire. She would nothaye sold it at that price, but would have had it auctioned. Mr. Mackersey produced a policy proposal showing that in 1924 the insurance company's . own agent valued the • hotel furniture at. £I3OO. An auctioneer, Donald Kennedy, said he was appointed arbitrator by' Mrs. Halford subsequent to the fire. Mr. Strang said the defendant company refused to have anything'to'-'do with the arbitration. ■ Witness said he took evidence And on January 19," 1931, he made his award; assessing the value of the contents of tha' hotel at £1033.

Assessments of Value, James Wallace Cochrane, manager • for Barraud and Abraham, T®' Kuiti,' said his firm bought the. lease of the' Grand Hotel in 1920, and paid £IBOO for the goodwill and contents. Between 1920 and 1923 Barraud and Abraham' spent £606 on new furniture and £IOO on crockery and cutlery for the hotel. To His Honor: His firm sold the lease,'goodwill and furniture' to the Halfords in 1923 for £2BOO. The original" furniture belonging to the owner, John Hefit, was negligible. An accountant, Frederick P. ' Liddle, said when the Halfords took over the hotel in 1923 he arranged an insurance policy on behalf of the defendant company over the contents of the hotel. He inspected the furniture and- assessed _ its value at £I3OO. He picked out Hefit s furniture and assessed its value at £lO. There was a policy over this furniture in the State Five Office for £IOOO. Counsel: The State Office was taking, a risk.

Witness: Yes, they were, but it was no business of, mine. _ • John N. Twomey, auctioneer, Te Kuiti, said that, guided by an inventory supplied bv Mrs. Halford after, tho fire, he assessed" the value of the contents of th» hotel at £983. The plaintiffs case has closed, and ev| dence for the defence will be ..taJseg. W< morrow* . • • - - ♦ •• • -