INSURANCE CLAIM.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 833, 3 June 1910, Page 9

INSURANCE CLAIM.

COMPANY DECLINES TO PAY. A claim for JCI7O on ti lire insurance policy was heard ill .the- Supremo Court, yesterday before his Honour the Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout), the action' having been brought by Mrs. Emily Ada Grosser, of Cambridge Terrace, against the Ocean Accident Guarantee Corporation, Jjtd. Jlr. I'. ,1, O'licgan appeared for the plaintiff, and Jlr. T. M. Wilford for the defendant company. Jlr. O'lfogan remarked, that a most extraordinary statement of defence had been filed—a model of legal ingenuity. His Honour: That is a high compliment to the pleader. (Laughter.) Jlr. O'licgan went 011 to say that, in that statement, it was alleged that the policy had been obtained by misrepresentation. The document also contained a covert charge of arson. liis Honour remarked that the chargcs of arson and misrepresentation would liavo to be proved just as clearly as in a crimiual case. Jlr. O'Kegan said that the Ocean Accident Company, for some inscrutable reason, did not keep copics of its testimonials, and the policy had been burnt in the lire. There was an interim policy however, which was sufficient to keep the coutract alive. His Honour pointed out that tho company denied the existence of the policy, the destruction of tho goods, the amount of the loss, and that particulars of loss were delivered. Plaintiff might deal with these matters, and leave it to the company to prove misrepresentation and arson. Jlr. O'Kcgan said that furniture, insured for <£180, had been practically destroyed by a iiro 011 August 20 last. . Mrs. Emily Ada Prosser stated, in evidence, that the furniture in the house was her property. When she lived at Jloxham Avenue, Kilbirnie, there had been two outbreaks of lire. On the first claim J.*G was paid by the insurance company, and, when the second fire was inquired into, 110 claim was made. Sho did not know whether the Atlas Insurance Company had thereupon cancelled tho policy. Cross-examination was continued as to tho ownership of boot-repuinng machines, and Jlrs. Prosser stated that she received 30s. a week as a boot machinist, giving him about .£2 ss. per week. No furniture or machines were removed from the house beforo tlie lire. There was a little benzine in a cupboard under thn'staircase, which part of tin. house was burned out before tho inmates were awakened. No clothes were saved from the lire. ' Jlr. "Wilford: It is untrue that Jlr. Prossor was seen dragging out two heavy portmanteaux packed with clothes?— Witness: "It is untrue." And if it is stated that Jlr. Prosser borrowed a suit of clothes to go down to interview the insurance company; and that, 011 the same afternoon, tho day after the fire, he was seen ill his own clothes, the statement is not true? —"No, it is not true." Albert David Prosser, boot machinist, admitted that he had had an insurance policy caucelled, and his wife knew this. Jlr. Wilford: The policy was taken out in your wife's name. AVas this a little game of yours to get insurance, knowing that tho company would not accept you after the fires you had?—' Witness: "No." You were pressed for money, weren't you?—"No, 1 was not; I had a banking account. I had plenty of money, and plenty of work to do. I had to (ynploy labour." Further evidence for the plaintiff Tvas given by George Coates (electrician), and ;Henry,:Jlellpws (driver). For the defence, Herbert Essex Smiley, canvasser for the Ocean Accident Company, stated that he had interviewed Jlr. Prosser with regard to the policy. He had always understood, until the policy was actually taken ont, that Prosser, and not his wife, was the principal. Prosser had told him that ho had never had an outbreak of fire in his premises. 1 John Jepson, tram conductor, stated that Prosser came to him on the. morning after the lire, and borrowed a suit of clothes. Prosser was then wearing a blue suit, an overcoat, and a hard hat. He stated that the clothes he, was wearing were not respectable enough, and ho wanted to go and interview tho insurance company, Frederick Gordon Ashley Cooper,. insurance clerk, stated that he inspected the furnitnro in the house, after Mr. Smiley had' brought in the proposal. Prosser answered in the negative three questions which witness put to him: (1) "Have you -ever had a fire?" (2) "Is the furniture insured in any other. olßce ?" and (3) "Has the risk been declined by any other office?" Thomas "William Rhodes, cab proprietor, and residing at . Prosser's house, stated that the furnishings were poor, and, before tho fire, Prosser had little or no stock, although he was doing bootrepairing work. On the night of the tiro, witness saw Prosser dragging out a heavy box, and carrying another, under his "arm. After the lire, the Prossers were dressed pretty much as before. Evidence was also given by Mrs. Johanna Jep=on. Further hearing of tho case will be proceeded with to-morrow morning.