Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1886. Kempton v. The National Insurance Company.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1783, 15 January 1886, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1886. Kempton v. The National Insurance Company.

The case of Mr T. E. Kempton v. the National Insurance Company, which was tried in the (-Supreme Court at Wellington on Tuesday, affords a telling illustration of how little weight is sometimes given to the verdict of a jury. We do not propose to deal with Mr Kempton’s case as a whole, or to offer any special opinion as to its merits. Jhere were doubtless some remarkable circumstances connected with the destruction of Mr Kerapton's premises and stock by fire and the very heavy insurances upon both Bn* that affair was fully investigated at the time, and no proceedings against Mr Kempton were taken, so it may i,e Saul that he remained scathless in the fiff-iiv. Then Mr Kempton tried to obtain payment of the various amounts for which the buildings and stock were insured. Here difficulties arose. The London Liverpool and Globe Company paid up the £SOO risk which they had taken upon the Stock. But the National Eire Insurance Company, which had taken a risk of £IOOO in all, declined to pay. The Standard Company, which had also a risk of £IOOO, likewise refused to cash up ; while the Australian Mercantile Company, with a risk of £SOO, took up a similar position. Mr Kempton therefore had recourse to the Law Courts, and as a *-»ing raised an action against the National Comply for the recovery of the Insurance .. “** * policy on his house and furniture . Greytown, amounting to £6OO, and £6OO on his stock in trade, amounting to £IOOO in all. The insmance was effected on 20th July, 1885, but no policy waa issued, a receipt being given for tin* first payment of the premium. On the 2nd August—ll days later—the tire took place, and the plaintiff's premises, &c,, were totally destroyed by fire. The defence rested.on the fact that notice of the fire had not been sent to the Insurance Company within fifteen days of the fire occurring ; also that the plaintiff had insured to the extent of LISOO in another office without notice having been given to the defendant company ; further, that plaintiff possessed no insurable interest in the building at the time the insurance was effected ; and lastly, that the plaintiff did not correctly state ti e nature of his interest in the building. After evidence had been taken the jury retired and ultimately brought in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on all the important issues submitted to them. That verdict in the ordinary course of things should have entitled Mr Kempton to compel the Insurance Company to pay him the sum of £IOOO claimed, and probably in that case the two other companies would also have paid up. But it seems that ip the opinion of his Honor, the Chief Justice, the verdict of the jury went for very little. His Honor on receiving the verdict quietly remarked “ that he would > eater op judgment for the defondwte end !

costs on the highest scale ; with liberty to the plaintiff to move to have judgment entered in his favor for LIOOO in the event of the Court being of opinion that the proposal for the policy did not incorporate the conditions ordinarily contained in the Company’s policies.” It is pos« sible that his Honor may have had some special reason in his mind which impelled him to this decision, but to the ordinary layman it seems a somewhat strange one. The case shows clearly enough that a Judge can, if he thinks proper, altogether set aside the verdict of a jury in a civil case, as if it were of no account whatever. This being the case we do not perceive that any good purpose is served by having a jury at all in such oases, if the Judge in reality tries and decides the questions involved. What is the use of dragging a dozen men away from their business and shutting them up in a sort of wooden pen or box for hours to listen to uninteresting evidence and prosy arguments in a case, if their verdict can be summarily dealt with as being altogether worthless. We are very much inclined to think that most civil cases could be best tried and decided by a Judge alone, without having a jury at all. A Judge of high ability and large experience, after bearing all the evidence, and also the speeches of counsel in a civil case, would be quite as competent to give a sound and just decision as a jury of twelve laymen of ordinary ability. But so long as the jury system exists in civil oases, it is surely not too much to ask that their verdicts should be allowed to carry a certain amount of weight, and not be set aside as altogether worthless. What the ultimate result is to be in Mr Eempton’s case, we do not in the least know. Of course he will more to have judgment entered up in his favor for LIOOO, and then the lawyers will go at the case tooth and nail with a whole legal battery of fresh arguments. Whatever may be the ultimate outcome of this business, Mr Kempton will at present be able to fully realise that the verdict of a jury is no longer regarded as being either sacred or infallible, and that the old adage about “ the glorious uncertainty of the law,” holds good alike in his and a good many other cases. Since the foregoing article was written it has been explained that the point on which the Judge entered a verdict lor the defendant was, that the plaintiff had effected certain large additional insurances without giving the defendant company notice. Had the policy been issued, this action would admittedly have vitiated it. The policy, however, bad not been issued when the fire occurred, but the proposal for the insurance, signed by the plaintiff, contains words stating that it is made " subject to the conditions of tbe company’s policy.” It this is held to be sufficient to embody the conditions of the policy as the condition of tbe proposal, the plaintiff cannot recover. This is the point which will have to be argued if tbe plaintiff moves to have the verdict entered lor him.