FIRE INSURANCE CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2934, 8 June 1910, Page 79

FIRE INSURANCE CASE.

A. DISPUTED CLAIM. WELLINGTON, June 6. The adjourned case, Emily Prosser v. the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation (Ltd.), a claim for £l7O on a fire insurance policy, was resumed in the Supreme Court ,to-day, before his Honor the Chief justice (Sir Robert Stout). The policy covered a quantity of furniture, stock, etc., in a house in Cambridge terrace, which was destroyed by fire last year. Mr P. J. O'Regan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr T. M. Wilford for the defendant company. Evidence for the defence having been submitted, rebutting evidence was given on behalf of the claim. In his defence Mr Wilford- pointed out that Mr Prosser already had two fires, and the present policy covering the goods was taken out by his wife, the plaintiff. There was suggested a transferred ownership, but there was no deed. Counsel urged that plaintiff had displayed a lack of good faith in attempting to derive benefit from the policy. A claim had been forwarded for a machine, which had not been destroyed, and he alleged that there had been gross misrepresentation and exaggeration. He referred to a quantity of benzine kept in the house, and a gas jet was left burning, and which it was said was p'ut out at 10 p.m. prior to. the fire, although another witness stated that it was alight at midnight. Mr O'Regan, for plaintiff, contended that Mr Prosser had never asked an insurance agent to accept a risk over any furniture destroyed in the fire. Nothing had been shown for the defence that any of the furniture had been removed. It was admitted that benzine was in the house. Regarding the machine which was declared for, and which was not destroyed, counsel said there was no intention of deliberate fraud. There had been no evidence to sustain the charge of incendiarism against Mrs Prosser. The answers to questions when making out the proposal were only representations and not warranties. His Honor reserved his decision.