SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1377, 15 July 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS. Monday, Juty 15.

[Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a Special Jury.] The civil sittings of the Supreme Court opened at 10 a.m. RANKIN V. NORWICH INSURANCE COMPANY. In this case James Rankin was plaintiff, and the Norwich Insurance Company, by their agents, J. M. ITeywood and Co, defendants. The plaintiff sought to recover from the defendants the sum of £IOO under the following circumstancesOn tho 16th March, 1875, the plaintiff effected an insurance with tho defendants for £SOO on a twelveroomed house near the South town belt, and paid the premium demaaded therefor by the defendants. The company issued to the plaintiff an interim policy for £SOO. In February, 1877, the building was burnt down. On the plaintiff making his claim for £SOO under the policy to the company, they decided to pay no more than £4OO, on the ground that the value of the building so destroyed did not exceed that sum. The plaintiff then brought his action to recover the difference between the £SOO insured and the £4OO paid by the defendants, with 8 per cent, interest from the date of the fire.

Mr George Harper, with him Air Thomas, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr G-arrick appeared for the defendants, Mr Thomas opened the case by reading the plaintiff’s declaration and pleas. The defendant pleaded a general denial of all the material allegations, and'further that the £4OO paid was full value for the building destroyed. Mr Peter Cunningham was chosen foreman of the special jury.

Messrs Gerard and H. S. Smith were fined £5 each for non-attendance as special jurors. The principal issues for the consideration of the jury were as follows : Did the plaintiff suffer damage and loss on the premises to the amount of £SOO. Was the sum of £4OO paid by the defendents to the plaintiff the total amount of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the burning, damage, and destruction of the premises ? Was the sum of £4OO a full indemity to the plaintiff for the said loss and damage P What sum of money (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover from *he defendant over and above the said sum of £4OO paid by the defendants to the plaintiff as aforesaid, on account of the loss sustained by the plaintiff as aforesaid ?

For the plaintiff, Mr Harper called James Rankin, Mr Jacques (foreman of works at the erection of the building), J. S. M. Jacobson, architect, who had examined the house for tho purpose of converting it into a hotel, and gave it ns his opinion that the house was worth about £6OO ; James Todd, who deposed to the general structure of the house. James Rankin deposed to tho fact that it would cost £525 to replace the building. Joseph Wood gave evidence to the value of the building, exclusive of papering and canvassing, being in his opiniou'<£4Bo. This closed the plaintiff’s case, Mrs Gerard attended, and having explained that Mr Gerard was at Snowdon, his Honor remitted tho fine.

[Left sitting.]