AN ASSURANCE CASE.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2048, 16 September 1880, Page 3

AN ASSURANCE CASE.

The Brisbane correspondent of tho “ Sydney Morning Herald ” hs the following:— “A more astounding difference between professional men upon an apparently simple matter could not be than that displayed during a resent lawsuit. The case was what is called “protracted,” and it had a few curious points about it. Imprimis, it was a dispute between two insurance companies, tbe New Zealand and South British—of itself an edifying spectacle. The solicitors and barristers engaged were nine in number, and it was a dispute about a fire. Tho action was on a policy of insurance issued by the South British Company on tho fine new premises of the New Zealand Company, and the amount claimed was £2700. The facts reposed in a nutshell, as the saying goes. Last September soon after the new building was in occupation, a miserable little greengrocer’s shop next door was, fortunately for lovers of street architecture, burnt down. The New Zealand Company alleged that certain cracks in the wall under which the fruit shanty nestled, were due to the fire—damages as above. The South British replied to the action by paying a frugal £69 into Court. That was their estimate. Two professional men swore that the fire had injured the building to the extent of £3OOO, another gave from £ISOO to £2OOO, another stood by £ISOO, another was ready to sink or swim by £2OOO, tho Colonial Architect said £lls was enough, and Mr Oowlishaw put the correct figures at £IBO. The jury had thus an ample scale, varying from £lls to £3OOO, and they assessed the damages at the lowest amount.”