Feiiding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XIX, Issue 56, 3 September 1897, Page 2

Feii ding S.M. Court.

Thursday, September 2nd. (Before Mr A. Greenfield, S.M.) The following cases were dealt with after we went to press yesterday : — J. S Palmer v. J. Bradley ; claim £5 os. Mr Catbro for plaintiff, and Mr Hurley for defendant Mr Catbro in opening stated that thin was a case in which tb« plaintiff sought to recover an amount paid as premium on an insurance policy, and arose in the following way, namely, in Jnne 1895, Mrs Oliver, the owner of the Empire Hotel, let the property to P. W. Corby, nnf! of the cotditions of the lease being that the latter wan to insure the premises to the fuil incurable value thereof; (.'orby transferred tho lease to J. S. Palmer, who transferred to Bradley, the Utter transferring to Follatt. During Mr Corby's occupation the premises were insured for £1050— £800 in the London Liverpool and Globe office and £250 in the Alliance ; the latter policy wm allowed to lapse, leaving the premises insured for £800, aud on February Ist, 1897, Mrs Oliver insured the Hotel for £300, making a total of £1100. The sura of £5 5s was demanded from Corby on the further insurance, but the actual : amouut of it was £7 An which they were not aware of at the time the demand was made Corby bai paid the amount of the demand and claimed from Palmer, who refunded the amount and the latter having claimed from Bradley he (Bradley) refused to pay. \V. A. Sandil&ndt deposed: Acted as solicitor for Mrs Oliver who leased the Empire Hotel premises to P. \\. Corby who transferred his lease to Palmer in December, 1895; on March 2, 1897, Palmer transferred to Bradley ; an application had boon made to Corby for the premium on a policy of L2GO insurance ; Corby paid the L 5 s* ; at the transfer from Pftlmor to Bradley, the former informed witness of a policy of L 250 the premium on which had been running for about sixteen d,i3's and that Bradley would pay it, the latter saying "that's nil light"; hnd the lissuranre that the premium would be paid and that was why he consented to ihe transfer ; Brad lev premised on two oitt i m to pay the premium but eventually refused to pay, raying thai the h"u?e was not what it was represent* d to be, that the lease was misrepresented and that (he prfDiniD' which should bo paid hod : beer, pi id.

j Croeis examined : Go; t!ie on.»ent to the transfer ; knew that there was an insurance of L 800; ilie insurance did not pa?B through his hau-is but the policies were held by a Mortgage .Agency Company ; he consented to the transfer of the lease on receiving an assurance that the premium would be paid; did not really know all about the insurance at ihe time of ;lie transfer, but Palmer referred to a policy of JL2SO ; could not remember whether Palmer left the office (Witness') to ascertain the amount of the iimirnnce premiums and ratei due to ennble the arrangement completed; the goodwill of the lease was L 450 And he was concerned to see thit the amount was paid by Bradley to Palmer and that wan nil ; denied telling Bradjey that they could not recover from him (Bradley) as it was a matter between themselves (Palmer and Bradley) and he oould Dot advise either way. J. S. Palmer deposed : In March Bradley bought his interest in the Empire Hotel ; the final settlement was eff < cted in Mr Santlilands' office ; part of the insurance (on £800) was in c'aded in tbe settlement ; got no notice of the insurance of £250 with the Alliance ; the insurances at the time of transfer to Bradley were £600 in the Lirerpoo', London and Globe and LBOO in the Commercial Union, the latter having been taken out in March when the policy for L 250 was conceited ; paid the j£s 5s demanded by Corby ; spoke to Bradley of the L 250 insurauce, at the time of the settlement ; Bradley verbally agreed to j>ay the premium on tbe L 250. Cross examined : The insurance on tbe building was LlOoO to tbe end of January 1897 ; about the end of January Mr Goodbehere advised witness the L 250 policy would expire and a new policy would be issued for L3OO in tbe Commercial Union ; from tbe end of January to August 1 did not insure for the lull amount and so far as be was concerned tbe premium on the policy was not paid ; be did it as far as be could, not having received notice of it being due ; believed that he left Mr Sandiland.V office on tbe day ot tbe settlement to see Mr Ooodbebere about the insurance of L 25 0; Mr Goodbehere said be would inform witness when it would have to be paid ; tha agreement included a payment for a portion of the policy of LBOO insurance; knew tbe L 250 policy would be renewed and that was why be mentioned this one. Re examined : Had not been asked for a furtLer payment and that was why he bad not paid it. Mr Cathro pointed out tbe policy of L3OO dated from March 9. Mr Hurley, for the defence, argued that Palmer bad committed a breach of the covenant by not paying tbe premium on tft% £2.30 policy- The fact of a land lady protecting herself did not reduce the liability of a tenant. Tbe appellant mast give a valid lease, but there was no policy no far as tbe lessee was conearned and the leas* could not be valid. He, therefore, asked for a nonsuit. His Worship said tbe matter was condoned by the conssnt of tbe lessor and be ruled against a nonsuit. John Bradley deponed : He and plaintiff went to Mr Sandilands office to com* plete the agreement for tbe transfer ; plaintiff went out of tbe office to ascer tain tbe amount of the insurance and on his return mentioned tbe amount which was about 130 ; paid at this time about £199 by cheque, a previous payment of £650 having been made ; paid tbe £199 after plaintiff found out tbe amount of the insurance ; after this plaintiff told witness there was a policy of £250 or £300 which bad been allowed to expire and about which be bad never been troubled ; was satisfied at the time that tbe £800 insurance wa9 the full amount; was never told there was a policy of £250 to keep np, and never understood there were further payments to make ; never told Mr Sandilands be (witness) was willing to pay the £5 6s ; bat refused to pay when asked ; Mr Sandilands bad told witness it was no use them going to him as they conld not recover. Cross-examined : Had paid tbe full amount of tbe insurance — tbe L 199 cbcqne. A. G. Cirty deposed i Was dark for Mr Sandilands ; remembered a con versaversation between Palmer and Bradley when (be question of insurance arose and Palmer told Bradley that tbe policy of L 250 bad expired and be had no intention of renewing it, and, further, (bat there would be no necessity for Bradley to renew it ; this was before tbe final agreement. ; went to tee Bradley about (he premium od the L 25 0; and witness was put off receiving bo satisfaction. Cross examined : Was not present at the settlement ; did not remember Bradley saying be was cot liable for tbe L5 Ds but bs had refused to p»y. His Worship thought that the amount should have been demanded and paid at the time of tbe settlement and in view of this he believed tha evidence for (be defence. Judgment was therefore given fpr the defendant with oosts $« and solicitors' fee 21s. Cheltenham Cooperative Dairy Com. pany v. C. Oerke ; claim £11. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr Cathro for defendant. This was a case iv VfbigU pUittttf company BOBgUfc to'J

recover for premiums, allotment fe«s and culls on five shares. K C. Tern pier deposed : Was secretary | to the Cheltenham Co operative Dairy : Company ; the shares were applied for ao<l allotted to the defendant. Mr Catliro objected to the Articles of Association being put in and asked that the case be non-suited an a properly certified copy of the articles were not produced. Mr Sandilaoda baring replied, His Worship held that it was necessary to produce a certified copy of tb« Articles of Association. Mr Sandilands then asked that the c«9e be adjourned to enable him to produce a certified copy of Articles of Association, and this was agreed to by Hih Worship. A counsel's fe« of 10s was allowed the defence J. Mclctosh v. P. Baar ; claim L5. Mr Catbro for plaintiff and Mr Sandi lands for defendant. A counter claim of L 2 14s 6d was put in. Tbe claim was on account of a stomping contract which defendant alleged had nut been cctnpletedi The plaintiff admitted be was only entitled to L 2 10s on the balance of accounts. Richard Wilson and Walter Woodman gave evidence to tbe effect that the contract was cot completed. Judgment wa» givep for the plaintiff for L 4 less the amount of the counter claim (I*2 14s 6ri) namely LI 5s 6d with coHts 6s and solicitor's fee LI 6s. Tbe Court then adjourned.