Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4523, 18 September 1875, Page 2

Accouding to the correspondent of the Otayo Daily Times a case of considerable interest in connection with fire insurance has recently been tried in Melbourne. The plaintiff, Lockhart, a furniture dealer, sued the Koyal, and the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Companies, upon policies of insurance amounting to .£2OOO which had been granted to him by the defendants. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had not complied with the conditions of the policies by giving the information required by the companies ; also, that the plaintiff had himself set fire to the place. It seems that after the destruction of his premises by fire the plaintiff sent notices to the companies claiming that the value of the goods destroyed was JEI4S9. Detailed particulars of the goods were demanded, and the plaintiff replied by sending in an amended claim, and alleging that as his books were burned he could give no further particulars. It was then urged by the companies that as the plaintiff had only been in business about three months, he ought to furnish them with duplicate invoices. The plaintiff, however, asserted that he was not bound to give any further information, and declined to do so. At the trial evidence was given to show that the plaintiff had committed incendiarism ; and in regard to other points his Honor the Judge told the jury, when summing up, that they had to say whether the defendants had made an unreasonable request in asking the plaintiff to supply them with the details of the loss of the furniture, and the places where the goods were got. "As to the exaggerated value," his Honor went on to say, " put by the plaintiff on his goods, of course if he had only done so in one instance, it might be only a mistake ; but if the jury found that he had done so all through the list, it would be evidence that it was not a mistake, but done designedly." The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, anil in answer to questions frorn his Honor, they said that the plaintiff did set fire to his goods ; that the defendants' application for further particulars was reasonable; and that the plaintiff did knowingly claim more than he was entitled to. After the verdict, the plaintiff vas committed for trial on the criminal side of the court to answer a charge of arson. We draw attention to this trial, as its result again reaffirms the important but not generally known fact, that if, after a fire, the assured claims for a larger sum than he is entitled to, aud thus fradulently endeavors to take advantage of an insurance company, he by so claiming vitiates his policy.