SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 17 September 1930, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR INSURANCE,

PLAINTIFF FAILS’

GREYMOUTH, September 10

At. the Supreme Court before AllJustice Adams, judgement was given against William Farrell, of Dunollie, in his case against the Northern Assurance Company, Ltd, of Christchurch, Hr W. P. .McCarthy represented plaintiff, and Air C, S. Thomas the defendants.

Plaintiff’s statement of claim was that be was the owner of a dwelling, chattels, furniture and effects, which were destroyed by fire at Dunollie on December 24 last; that bis loss on the building was at least £330, and on the contents at least £133 10s; that on April 30, 1929, at Greymouth, in consideration of a yearly premium of 19s the company executed a policy of insurance agianst loss or damage by fire, that plantiff performed all the conditions on his part, but that tlie company had not paid the loss, and repudiated liability in a letter dated March 4, 1930. He therefore claimed £l5O for loss in respect to the building, and £IOO for loss in respect to the chattels, furniture, and effects, a total of £250.

The defence was a denial that the building or contents were to ally or partially destroyed by fire; that plaintiff’s loss was as alleged; that plaintiff had performed all or any of the conditions of the policy;, and that liability was repudiated as stated. An alternative defence was that, if plaintiff suffered loss as set out in the statement of claim (which was denied), then lie .prosecuted his claim under the policy in a fraudulent manner; that, in making out his proof of less to the insurance company, plaintiff fraudulently declared that some of the furniture, chattels, and effects had l een destroyed; and that he thereby forfeited the policy, under condition No. 13.

Air McCarthy stated that the majority of the evidence had been heard before in the Supreme Court, when plaintiff had been charged with making a false declaration. On the occasion the jury had decided in his favour. Plaintiff had then made a claim on the insurance company, which had been refused.

Farrell -stated that he was an engine (’river, and all his life savings were invested in tlie house' and furniture. When the fire had occurred he was in Greymouth.

Air Thomas produced tlie declaration list, and asked had fill the articles mentioned been destroyed. Fa-roll replied in the affirmative.

“Now T want to be fair with you,” o;tL'[ All* Thomas. “They were ,1101. You had better read the list.”

After reading the list, Farrell still maintained* Unit all the articles had been destroyed. Mr Thomas: Was the sofa destroyed and the two Morris chairs?—No.

His Honor: You have just read the list, and swp,r,n that they were Mr Thomas: Was the table in the front room destroyed P—Yes. “You say that in face of the evidence given by Constable Houston and Mi- Ellery, who stated that it was not destroyed?”—“Yes.”

Mr Thomas : Do you know the gravity of making a false declaration?

In answer to another question, Farrell said that lie did not agree that if the declaration had not been carefully checked by Mr Graves, the fire insurance adjuster, lie would have been paid articles that were not destroyed' Questioned % Mr Thomas why he had said that the sofa, had been burnt, witness stated that it had been in the garden for a day or two. His Honor, to Farrell: I want to see your point of view, hut it is difficult to accept both statements made bv you, that you carried the sofa into Sweeney’s, and then did not know it was not burnt. Mr Thomas : Why did you say that

on December 261 h you carried tlie sofa into Sweeney’s, and then on December ,11 Nt make a claim of £3 for it? Witness did not reply, and Mr Thomas said: “I will tell won why .you can’t answer. It is because you have no honest explanation. Farrell said that he ..could not account for the declaration.

“You- have had one. lucky escape,” exclaimed Mr Thomas, and I warn you not to look for another. You know what perjury means. Was the .sofa in the room where the declaration was made?”-“Yes.” After further cross-examination about the sofa, in which Mr Thomas clicked some unsatisfactory replies, lie questioned Farrell on several otner points in the evidence given by tne latter, in the previous ease. Asked as to where he had purchased the gramophone, which figured prominently in the case against him, witness stated that he had purhcased it, and thirty records, at an auction room in Christchurch. Mr Thomas: Jn tli® trial grave doubts were expressed as to -whether you bad a gramophone at all. Have you taken any steps to find out the name of the place where you purchased it?—No Mr Thomas: Don’t you think it would have been wise if you had done so?—No. Tn reply to His Honoi, Farrell contradicted himself as to the day on which he had purchased the machine. “What were the names of the records you bought?” asked Mr Thomas. Witness, after some thought, said that he could not remember, but they were French ones. “Whai n ivas‘ the name of them,” persisted Mr Thomas. “The.'".name of' one of them was ‘Parley Woo,’ ’’ said witness, amidst a burst 'of laughter. “Well, that’s French alright,” remarked Mr Thomas. Continuing his .cross-examination Mr Thomas asked whether a table had been destroyed, witness stating that it was.

“Farrell, I warn you to bo careful,” said Mr Thomas. Asked , about three beds which he had previously said were destroyed, only two wire mattresses being found after the fire, Farrell stated that he remembered afterwards that one of the mattresses was made of wood.

Mr Thomas: Do you know the difference between the truth and what is not true? —Yes.

After more questions, Mr Thomas threw the evidence papers on the table, and said that he would not persist with the witness. He moved for judgement on the evidence-of the witness, or, in the alternative, a nonsuit.

Mr McCarthy said that it was a matter entirely for His Honor His Honor: It is hard to resist the view that plaintiff knew he was making false statements. The evidence is such that I can only decide that he did make false statements, and ■that be realised that he. was doing so, when he made false claims, on oath, with the, object of enforcing a fraudulent claim. I will not say more than that. Judgement will be for defendant, with costs according to scale, disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the Registrar.” 1 GREYMOUTH, September 16. James A. Keeney applied for an injunction to restrain the Cobden Town Board and F. J. Higgins from collecting rates due, on the ground that a new valuation had not been made. The action was dismissed, with £lO 10s costs to each side. Edward Thomas Groufsky was granted a decree nisi against Gladys Groufsky, on the ground of adultery, Walter Henry Mulroy being named as co-respondent. The suit was undefended. His Honor: You wish an order against co-respondent for costs? Mr J. AV. Hannan (for petitioner) : No. It is not worth while, yonr Honor. The Deputy-Official Assignee applied for release in the following estates: John Henry Lindlboim and Thomas Francis McGuire, Robert Thirlaway, Peter Munro Eadie, John Tlenrv Miller, AA’illinm Fowler, Michael AA r afer, Edward John Hill, Linus Evelyn AValker, Charles Edward Bell, Hugh Paterson, John Syme-s, Thomas Andrew Cressey and Alfred White; also in the estate of Thomas Baxter (deceased). There being no opposition, the applications were granted.