LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2316, 25 November 1914, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

I SUPREME COURT I j ____ THE UPPER HUTT DISASTER , A QUESTION OF INSURANCE CONDITIONS OF FIRE POLICY Important law points were argued before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court yesterday morning as a preliminary to a civil 'action arising out of the fatal fire and explosion at Messrs. Benge and Pratt's store at Upper Hutt on March 28 last. The plaintiffs in the action were Herbert Victor Benge and Herbert Leopold Pratt, and the defendants were tho Guardian Assurance Company, Ltd. Mr. C. B. Morison, K.C., )vith him Mr H. F. O'Leary, appeared for the plain • tiffs,'while Mr. M. Myers appeared for the defendant company. In the statement of claim it was set out that on April 23, 1913, the Guardian Assurance Company issued to Benge and Pratt a fire insurance policy for £1800 on stock-in-trade, valued at £1800 and upwards. The policy wae renewed for one year on January 29,. 1914, and was valid and in force at the time of the fire. On March 28, tho stock-in-trade, covered by the policy, was totally destroyed by fire with the exception of a small quantity, which the Guardian Assuranoe Company sold for £50, this sum being handed to Benge and Pratt. The balance (£1750) of the amount, for which the policy was. issued, was now claimed by Benge and Pratt. The Guardian. Assurance Company admitted that the policy was in force at tho time of the fire, but denied that the stock-in-trade was of the value of £1800. Further; the Guardian Assurance said that the stock was not totally destroyed by fire, but that thcloss was caused partly bv fire and partly by an explosion. The company denied that Benge and Pratt had complied with all the conditions, of the policy.

It was agreed'that before the action came to trial certain law points should be submitted to the Court. It was. common ground that the insured had stated in their proposal of insurance that hazardous goods would not "be stored and that, notwithstanding this, over 50 pounds of gelignite and quantities of bla'sting powder and gunpowder had on more than one occasion been stored on the promises. The main, question for the Court was: Did a breach of the warranty embodied in the question and answer in the proposal— "Will any hazardous goods bo stored? No" —amount to a breach of a condition of the policy? Mr. Morison. contended that .as the fire was antecedent to the explosion, the .plaintiffs were entitled to recover under ths policy. , Mr. Myers argued that 'the. storage of explosives rendered tho policy invalid. ; His Honour reserved decision. A WIDOW'S ALLOWANCE. ESTATE OF LATE A. F. DOUGLAS. In the Supreme Court yesterday His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) dealt with an originating summons in the matter of the Family Protection Aot, 1908, and the estate of the late Ai F. Douglas, sheep-farmer, of Te Mahanga, near Hastings., The plaintiff in the action was Emily Douglas, widow, of Hastings. The defendants were W. J. Douglas, H. Humphries, and T. S. Roulston, executors -of tho will of the deceased; Kathleen Jean Douglas and four other infant children of the deceased's brother (W. J. Douglas) ; and Colin Douglas White and three other infant children of the* deoeased's sister (Edith Maud White).

Mr. H. B. Lusk, of Napier, appeared for tho plaintiff, while Mr. W. C. Sproule, of Napier, • appeared for the executors, _ and Mr. E. F. Hadfield foi the guardians of the infant children, who were joined as defendants. It appeared that the late A. F. Douglas died a few months ago, leaving estate worth' £150,000. To his widow he bequeathed his residential property, the house thereon having cost some £4000 or £5000 to build, and a considerable sum to furnish, and necessitating a heavy expense for upkeep. In addition to this property Mrs. Douglas was left a sum 'of £300 per annum and some, properties, which were stated to be of little value.' It was contended that the will made inadequate provision for Mrs. Douglas's maintenance, and the Court was aßked te grant her Bome further annual 6um. When the summons came on for hearing yesterday morning Mr. Lusk announced that the parties had consented to an additional allowance of £700 per annum to Mrs. Douglas during the term of her widowhood. His Honour made an order accordingly, the costs of all parties, as between solicitor and client, to bo paid out of the estate. FAMILY TRANSACTIONS. AN INVOLVED CASE. The action, J. R. Prouse, of Levin, v. the Matai Sawmilling Company, a claim for £500, was heard yesterday before His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards, the plaintiffs being non-suited. Mr. R. Kennedy appeared for the plaintiffs, while Mr. T. Young appeared for the defendants. ■

From the facts before the Court it appeared that the action arose through a confusion of companies. The plaintiffs (J. and R. Prouse) claimed from tho Matai Sawmilling Company • tha sum of £500 in lieu of 500 fully paidup shares, or in tho alternative tho sum of £500 for alleged breach of agreements- J. and R. Prouse traded in partnership as Prouse Bros., and were also directors arid afterwards liquidators of a company known as Prouse 8r05.., Ltd. On tho other side of the action were Oliver and John Prouse, who were managing directors of Prouse Lumber, Ltd., in Wellington, and also of the Matai Sawmilling Company, which was a company within Prouso Lumber, Ltd. Negotiations took place between the Levin Company, known as Prouso.Bros., Ltd., and the Wellington company, known as Prouse Lumber, Ltd., for the sale of certain plant at Levin. ! Complications followed and yesterday the Court (in dealing with the action) was asked to decide whether these negotiations had been broken off and new negotiations for the sale of the plant entered into and completed between Prouse Bros., of Levin, and the Matai Company, 'or whether (through a misunderstanding) -the original negotiations had been carried through, Oliver and John Prouse acting as directors of tho Prouse Lumber Company, and not as directors of tho Matai-Company. Aftor evidence for tho plaintiffs had been tendered, His' Honour non-suited plaintiffs, referring to the fact that the matters were. family transactions and that.tho plaintiffs had not taken proper business precautions in making clear the exact nature of the transactions in the peculiar circumstance!.