SEQUEL TO HOTEL FIRE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20902, 18 June 1931, Page 14

SEQUEL TO HOTEL FIRE.

INSURANCE ON FURNITURE.

TE KUITI CLAIM OPPOSED.

CONTENTS OF DECLARATION.

JUDGE RESERVES DECISION

[FROJJ O'JR ' OWN* CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Wednesday. Evidence for the defence was heard before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Hamilton Supremo Court to-day in the case in whij:h Edith Halford, widow, Te Kuiti (Mr. Mackersey), sought to recover £SOO from the New Zealand Insurance Company, Limited (Mr. Strang and Mr. iWeir), the amount alleged to be due on an insurance policy. Tho policy was for £SOO and covered furniture and groceries in the Grand Hotel, Te Kuiti, which was (destroyed by fire on l August 8, 1930. In opening the caso for the defence, Mr. Strang said it -was no exaggeration to say that from first to last the circumstances surrounding the fire had been of a most unsatisfactory character. The defence was based on the broad principle that it was the duty of the insured person to observe tho utmost good faith toward the insuring company. Counsel claimed that plaintiff had not done this. The defendant would hold most strongly that in the hotel there was a substantial portion of the original furniture which was ownfcd, nob by Mrs. Halford, but by the Hotel Company. Condition of the Furniture.

The company held that it was material to it to know what the ownership of the destroyed chattels was. Plaintiff declared that she was the solo owner. The evidence would go to show, however, that the destroyed chattels consisted largely of a lot of old and dilapidated furniture that had been in the houso for many years. Mr. Strang said there was no evidence whatever that plaintiff's late husband spent anything on the furnishings apart from tho statement made by plaintiff herself that ho had spent £4OO on the annexe. Counsel stated that in the proposal on which the policy was based the declared value of the furniture was £6OO. There was a startling discrepancy between this figure and £1278 which Mrs. Halford gave in her declaration of loss. The exaggeration of values was so gross, said counsel, as to constitute fraud. His Honor remarked that if his house was destroyed that night he would not be able to furnish an accurate inventory. Counsel admitted that ho would bo in the same position. New Tenant's Inspection. Mr. Strang said Mr. Gibb, the new &mant of tho hotel, had inspected the furniture just before tho firo and had aS3essod its value at £l5O. Mrs. Halford iad stated at the inquiry that only a negligible quantity of the furniture belonged •to the Hotel Company. Mr. Strang said the original furniture had Keen insured in the State Fire Office for £IOOO, and in 1926 the amount of the cover was reduced to £6OO. The Auckland manager of the New Zealand Insuranco Company, Limited, Henry William Kelly, produced policies which i had been issued to Mrs. Halford. After the fire Mrs. Halford estimated the value of her furniture at £I3OO and made a '""■ declaration Witness subjnittedj!o,.analysis of tho inventory made 'in 1926 and of tho schedule prepared by Mrs. Halford after tho fire.. Witness said, he regarded tho declaration to mean that Mrs. Halford was the solo owner of the property mentioned in her schedule. He thought Mr. Liddle's attitude in not advising the defendant company that there was a policy for £IOOO on the original furniture was. extraordinary. He was tho employee of the company's agents. Cross-examined, witness said in March, 1927, an officer of tho company valued the furniture and stock at £590. Mrs. Halford's claim was corrected to some extent by her solicitor's letter on October 20. Estimate by Adjuster. f A fire insurance adjuster, Stuart Ernest Forbes, said he had stayed at the Grand Hotel half a dozen times during 1930. He was last there on July 24. The furnishings of the rooms were old and worn, and he estimated tho value of the contents of each room at an average of £6. He did not think the contents of the 'hotel were worth £4OO. He understood Mrs. Halford was claiming for tho loss of the -whole of the furniture. An officer of the State Fire Office, Harold Blackwood, produced tjocuments /showing that in May, 1923, the State Office held a risk over the furniture in the Grand Hotel, Te Kuiti, owned by the estate of John Hetit, for £IOOO. The furniture was then valued at £ISOO. In June, 1923, the insurances were adjusted, the risk over tho original furniture being reduced to £6OO. A separate policy was taken out by tho New Zealand Company over Halford's furniture for £SOO. • The State Office's policy lapsed in June, 1926. Albert John boarding house proprietor, Taumarunui, said ho was the successful tenderer for the lease of the Grand Hotel, To Kuiti, in July, 1930. He stayed in tho hotel, for three days, a week prior to the fire. He examined the fur- ; niture of the house with a view to buying it if it was for sale. He had not discussed the purchase with Mrs. Halford, although he had arranged to do so. Witness valued the furniture at £230. Hf l considered tho furniture was too old. worn, and out-of-date for the class ol business he wanted to conduct. Witness did not think it was possible for. the contents of the house to have realised £450 at auction. The kitcher was amply supplied with good utensils. The old furniture was of a cheap type. Witness valued the average contents at £5 a room.

Interest of Hotel Company. 'A hotel porter, William Davies, described the furniture in the Grand Hote: as fairly old. He saw no new furnituro installed in the five months he wail there. The managing director of the Grand Hotel Company, Limited, Henry Rothery, said the company was formed five yearn ago. The only inventory he knew of wail contained in the lease. When the company took the hotel over, lie understood that most of the furniture in tlio houso belonged to the company. Mr. Halford informed witness that he had bought some furniture, and inquiry showed that thin was correct. Witness could not say how much of the furniture belonged to this company, but its interest in the furnituro had never been inspected or valued. In June, 1926, the State Fire Oflice refused to renew its risk over the company's furniture owing to dual insurance, and no further steps had been taken to have it insured. Cross-examined: No reference was mad i in the 1929 or 1930 balance-sheet of tha company to the furniture in the house. Evidence was given by a Te Kuiti cabinetmaker, William George McEwan, that acting on instructions from the Public Trustee he valued the late Mr. Halford's furniture in the Grand Hotel ia 1926. His valuation was £328. To Mr. Mackersev, witness said Mrn. Halford pointed out the furniture belonging to her late husband. He did not value the furniture that was not pointed out to him. Witness said he could not account for the fact that the Public Trn stee had given the value of Mr. Halford's furniture in tho stamp duty statement at £373. His Honor: Tho case is full of mysteries.

The case for the defence was tlmn closed. Decision was reserved.