SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7928, 20 July 1887, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL KITTINdS, TuusiMY July II).

(Heforo Ilia Honor Mr Justice Williams and a

Special Jury of four.")

WOliSllKt.r. V. THK HNITKD IN.SUHANCE COMPANY

(i.i.Mnmi). Claim £320, nwlor a policy of insurance against fire.

Mr I). I). Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff: (Ueorgo Worsdell, of North-East Valley, fellmongur), ami Mr Denniston for the defendant company.

The statement of claim sot forth that tho plaintiff, by n policy or insurance bearing dato 20th October JBHO, effected an insurance against firo with tho defendant company on his building and stock of wool, skms, hair, buggy and liiirness therein, sitintted at Normanby, NorthHast Valley, for the total sum of £-120. That tin; insurance was ellVclod on Hie terms and conditons contained in tho said policy, to continue in force till the (jth October 1888, and for so long thereuftenvfinis ;is tho plaintiff, his heirs, executors or administrators should from time to time pay tho sum required for the renewal of tho policy. That on tho -Ith of October 1880 the plaintiff puid tho said company the sum of £3 Ms for the renewal of tho policy from the GUi October 188(5 to Oth October 1887, and tho company accepted tile same; and that on tho 16th of January 1887, whilo the policy was in lull force, a lire broke out on tho aforesaid premises, and destroyed the said store and stable and tho whole of the said stock &c. therein. Tbo plaintiff, it was further alleged, at tho timo of muking tho said policy, mid thoncß to tho happening of the fire, was interested in the promises and goods insure 1; that the loss thereby was ;£320, and that the loss to the plaintiff by reason of the firo was a loss within the menning of tbe policy.

The statement of the defence contained the following allegations :—That after the alleged loss and damage tho plaintiff mude and delivered to the defendant company a false and fraudulent account of the alleged loss and damage, in which account the plaintiff represented that the stock of wool, skins, hair, buggy imd harness insured under tho policy to an amount exceeding tho sum of £245 had been burnt and destroyed by the said fire, and that his loss and damage by the fire exceeded tho sum of £245, with intent to induce the defendant company to pay the plaintiff tho sum of £2-15, being the amount insured on the said wool, skins, hair, buggy and harness; whereas the wool, skins, buggy and harness to the amount represented hud not been burnt or destroyed by the fire, and that the loss was not to that amount, as the plaintiff well knew. It was also stated that the plaintiff did not within the timo limited by the conditions endorsed on the policy, or at any other time, produce to the defendant company his books of account, vouchers, or any other evidence of the particulars of tho said loss.

George 'Worsdelt (the plaintiff) was called, and gave evidence in support of his claim. Iv cross-examination witness stated that ho kept no books and no papers, aud that he only kept accounts until he got paid, and then destroyed them. When he sold things he destroyed the account of them. He could nut tell his annual turnover within a thousand pounds; could not say whether it was £1000, £"2000, or £3000. He could guess within a little what was in the building, aud he had put in the claim just about what he thought was in the place when the fire occurred. The claim was made entirely from memory—from what ho recollected of the heaps of wool and skins. He was in the building the day before the fire took place. He had not a scrap of paper to guide him excepting his bank book and the blocks in his cheque book showing what he had paid.

Tho following witnesses also gave evidence for the plaintiff: — Edward J. Worsdell, John Often, John Konaldson, Samuel Finch, F. Oalvert, William Wenlock, W. E. Carmalt, Charles Anderson, S. Stephen, and S. Whittle.

Mr Denniston opened the case for the defendant company, and called the following witnesses :—William Heads, G. L. Denuiston, James Grey, Henry William Plnlworthy, A. D. H'Douald, 13. R. Bradshaw, and Isaac Green. Mr Denniston in addressing tho jury on behalf of the company said that the plaintiff had to establish to tho satisfaction of the jury that ho had lost the articles for which he claimed. Tho case for the defendant company was that the claim w&s a bogus one, and the plaintiff had practically brought no real evidence to support it. On tho Monday after the fire the plaintiff specifically and iv detail enumerated to. a pound the articles he professed to have lost. The plaintiff was called upon to substantiate the claim, and challenged with its being fraudulent on ttie 16th of January, but ho practically allowed it to slumber till the end of April, without making a single attempt to substantiate his claim at a time when evidence would have been easily ascertained and easily tested. After this delay the case was brought for trial by a jury, and the only evidence in support of the claim was the evidence of friunds and velatious, who. merely stated what they had seen some time before the fire. Leaving aside the expert evidence regarding the difficulty of burning rabbifcskins, the common sense of the jury might be trusted to decide whether the quantity of skins and wool mentioueJ in the claim had been burnt without leaving some considerable trace behind it, and that no trace of them had been left was clearly proved. If the jury bulievcd the claim was not hona fide— that it was an exaggerated claim within the UuoreledgH of the plaintiff,—then the defendant company was entitled to a verdict absolutely ; tho fact of the plaintiff insisting upon a bogus and fraudulent claim justifying tho company in refusing to pay any part of it. After commenting upon the evidence, the learned counsel remarked that whatever might ba said to the contrary, an insurance company had no more wish than an individual to oppose a claim; in fact compauiss could only live by straightforward dealings. Mr Denniston (ono of the witnesses for the company) had told them that this was the first claim the company had ever resisted here; but if a coin* uauy, for the sake of gaining popularity, paid any claim it knew to be fraudulent, it would not be doing justice to tho public. Mr Macdonald addressed the jury for the plaintiff, contending that positive evidence had been brought by the plaintiff in support of his claim, that the delay had not arisen through the fault of the plaintiff, and that the evidence for the defence was merely surmise or speculation, From the letter written by Mr Dennistou it appeared that the company had been willing to pay £220, but now the company wanted the jury to say that Worsdell had been guilty of fraud and should not receive a penny. That, he believed, was something the jury would not say, and he left the result to them with confidence. His Honor summed up the case, and in doing so pointed out that the principal question was one that was particularly within the province of the jury to deoide, namely, whether the cliiim was or was not fraudulent.

The Jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £320, and judgment was entered accordingly. The court adjourned at C p.m.