SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume III, Issue 165, 15 July 1868, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS.

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) Tuesday, July 14. Trimble v. the New Zealand Insurance Company. (Continued.) Dr Combe having addressed the jury, called for the defence, Herbert Evelyn Curtis, who said that he was Agent for the New Zealand Insurance at the time the fire occurred. He remembered the plaintiff calling more than once in reference to his insurance, and also receiving a letter from him, (which was read) enquiring whether his property, which was lying ih various places, exposed to the weather, should be removed by him, or was to be

considered as the property of the Company, to which witness replied, stating that 'no proof of loss' or claim had been then sent in by plaintiff, and refusing to hold the Company liable until after the result of the investigation then going on had been arrived at. Afterwards a claim was received from plaintiff, and still later, he went with plaintiff to Mr Mabin's office, where plain tiff took oat hto his statement. Plaintiff never asked witness whether the claim was all right on that occasion, neither was any reference made to the matters mentioned in his letter. He next saw plaintiff before the 26th November, when witness stated that the claim sent in was not such a one as the Company required and plaintiff declined to do so, saying it was impossible. Witness said that until those details were supplied, the claim would be laid aside, and not even taken into consideration. No particulars were furnished before the action was commenced, except the claim originally made. He considered the valuation made by Mr Moore to be low. Remembered the remark made about Bryant, on the 21st November. He had said that the fact that the account had been made out by Bryant would induce them to look upon it with caution or suspicion Cross-examined by Mr Conolly: When plaintiff first came to witness about his insurauce, he knew that there was a charge against, plaintiff's mother-in-law, and referred to it in his first letter When plaintiff came to his office and witness accompanied him to Mr Mabin's office, it did not occur to him that it was the last day on which the claim could be made. It was not his business to insure furniture, otherwise than as agent of the Insurance Company. He had told the plaintiff he must employ some other agent than Bryant. Nathaniel Edwards, examined by Dr Combe said that he resided in Nelson, and was formerly a merchant and previously an auctioneer and engaged in -valuing property. In Jauuary, 1865, he assisted Mr Tregea in valuing the effects of Mr Newman, when about to sell the contents of the Masonic Hotel, to Mr Taylor. The aggregate value of the furniture was £4G2 19s. 6d., the wines and spirits £183 Bs., the whole amount being £791 1 1 s. 7d. The billiard room and its contents Avere valued at £165 6s. He rated the depreciation for wear and tear of furniture in a public house at 10 percent per annum. The prices of furniture generally ruled lower in 1867 than in 1865, and the depreciation on the price of fixtures was much the same. This witness was examined as to the value of several articles enumerated in Mr Moore's valuation, for the purpose of showing that the last valuation was much lower than the preceding one. G. Tregea, being examined, said he was now a publican residing ia Nelson, and remembered being employed with Mr Edwards in making the valuation in 1865, with whose evidence as to the depreciation of value of furniture he concurred. Oa being cross-examined by Mr Connolly, the witness said that the valuation was made at the request of Mr Newman, and did not know at what price second-hand billiard tables now sold in Nelson. Only £50 was offered for one, a few months ago, which was refused. J. R. Mabin, being examined, said he was a notary public. Remembered the plaintiff coming to his office with Mr Curtis to make a declaration relative to his loss by the fire. Mr Field waa also there. Heard no remark madejby Mr Curtis, in reply to the plaintiff, to the effect he was satisfied. Dr Combe then addressed the jury, and Mr Conolly having replied most ably, his Honor summed up, and the jury having retired, returned into Court at 8 o'clock, after an absence of an hour and ten minutes, with a verdict for the plaintiff on all the issues, thus awarding a sum of £435, viz.:— £3l3 for furniture, and £122 for stock, fixtures, &c. The question of costs will probably be decided in Banco.