RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1165, 3 October 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.J There were no criminal cases set down for hearing to-day. CIVIL CASES. WHINRAY V. DOL'GLLAUX. Adjourned for a week. PORTER V. GREEN. Claim for £5O on a dishonored promissory note. Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Nolan for the defendant. On the application of the defendant this case was adjourned until Tuesday, the 7th November next.

CHRISP AND DUFAUR V. BREWER. Adjourned on the application of defendant to the 24th instant, in order that certain evidence for the defence might be produced iat Napier. Mr Nolan appeared for the ' plaintiffs. i The case of Parnell and Boylan v. Brewer was also adjourned until the 24th instant on . the same grounds. ' I). G. MCKAY V. ROBJOHNS, IRVING, AND CO. Mr Nolan appeared for the defence, and asked that the case might adjourned to the 17th instant. The request was granted. KENNEDY AND BENNETT V. EGANS. Claim for £2 18s which had been adjourned for a fortnight, was called on for hearing. Mr Kenny, who appeared for the plaintiffs, ! said that the case had been adjourned owing ■ to the defendant having sustained some severe injury which necessitated his removal ito the Hospital where he still lay. The j plaintiffs were not in attendance so he would ! request His Worship to further adjourn the . case for 14 days as the defendant was not | yet well enough to appear. ; His Worship granted the request, and adI journed the case until the 17th instant. MCINTOSH V. ROSS. This was a judgment summons, the claim I being £5 15s lid. The defendant appeared and stated that he was unable to pay the amount- He had ■ no shares in the oil springs, nor did he ever i have any. He was receiving from £2 10s to £2 12s per week, and had a large family. He ’ had six children, and was at work in the i country so that in fact he had to keep two He would quite willingly pay as soon as his ; circumstances improved. I Judgment was given for 10s per month to . he paid by the defendant. j MCKAY V. SOUTH BRITISH INSURANCE CO.

Claim for £lOO was then called on. Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff, and . Mr Brassey for the defendants. Mr Kenny opened the case for the plaintiff' * and stated that this was a case in which the plaintiff’ sued the defendants as an Insurance Company, carrying on insurance business 'incorporated under the Joint Stock Companics’Act, 1861, and amendments thereof,) j in the Colony of New Zealand. That by i policy of insurance bearing date November, 1881, which policy is in the possession and under the control of the defendants and in consideration of a certain premium paid by plaihtiff to defendants, their agents in Gisborne, one Henry Haase, the plaintiff ; insured certain furniture, buildings, and erections at the Arai Station then in plaintiff's possession, against loss by tire in the sum of £lOO sterling, the furniture for £3O and the building for £7O, and the plaintiff, at the time of paying the said premium aud : the time of the making of the said policy, and thence until and at the time of the loss i and damage hereinafter mentioned, was interested in the said buildings and furniture I so secured as aforesaid to the above amount. | And after the payment of such premium and : interest the insurance was in force the said i several premises so insured were burnt and ■ destroyed by fire, whereby he suffered dam- ' age and loss and became entitled to the bene- : fit of his insurance and demanded payment 1 thereof, yet the defendants have not paid and refuse to pay out of the capital, stock, and funds of the said Company the amount . of the said insurance, and the same remains I wholly npaid to the plaintiff, wherefore the i plaintiff claims payment of the said insurance of £lOO. D. G. McKay having taken an affirmation stated : 1 am a farmer, ami the plaintiff' in this ease. 1 was part owner of the house that was burnt. 1 built the house myself. 1 asked my partners. Messrs Teat and Bobjohns, to imiuic «.he house in 1876. All the furniture L: the house vr< mine. I Irul i iiiburuti the house and furniture in my own

name for £l5O. The agents then were Parnell and Boylan. In 1878 I took my family away and dropped the insurance. I declined to re-insure and Mr Teat, my partner, and his insurance run out. Mr Haase, the agent for the Company, came to me about A-a-dozen times and asked me to reinsure the house ; I declined. When I paid i a pound in November, 1880, I met Mr Teat i and Mr Haase together ; the latter said when j are you going to insure that house. I replied • what is the use of my insuring a property I I might sell to-morrow. He said JM as foolish 1 and that by insuring I could protect myself, ! and if a fire occurred I would be entitled to | insurance money. Teat said to me yon in- i surance it. I took £1 out of my pocket and ■ gave it to Haase, and heard nothing of it till j Mr Carlaw Smith said he held a policy, and I handed it to me. It is the one produced. ■ I never authorised Haase to insure £2O on house and £3O on furniture. 'The insurance I was to cover my interest in the premises. The house was burnt down in September i 1881. Mr Carlaw Smith, the agent, then '■ offered me £3O for the furniture. At the ! time of the fire in September, ISSI. 1 had | sold my interest in the property. In March, 1881, I had sold my interest. At the time ' of the fire 1 had not been paid the whole amount of my interest. Cross-examined by Mr Brassey — The • house was worth about £l3O. I put in a I proof of loss. I have no recollection of I signing a proposal for the policy. The sig- | nature to the proposel for insurance produced ' jis mine. It states £7O for the house anil 1 £32 for the furniture. (Proposal read.) I ; do not recollect ever .signing the document. ! I am very much surprised to see it. The ; date is 10th November, 1880. There was ! no insurance ever effected by me on behalf , of the partnership. There were five of us . iin partnership. In April, 1880, I received . a cheque for £76 from Mr Ewing, and that ' j cleared me out of the business, with the ex- , ception of the insurance policy. Rob- i j john never paid me a cheque for £l2. ; ' I completed my bargain by receiving the i £76. I have no interest in the station now. 1 There are £24 still due io me on the iraus- ' action. 1 did not sutler any loss from the i burning of the house. Mr brother Norman ' was living on the station at the time of the J proposal for the insurance. By Mr Kenny : The proposal for insurance iis not filled up in my writing. The lire was j on 24th August, 1881. I William Teat called :lam a merchant in ' Gisborne, I was present when plaintiff and ' Mr Haase had a conversation with reference ! to the insurance policy in ouestion. 1 Mr Brassey said he would admit this con- ’ versation. ! Mr Kenny said this was the plaintiff’s i case. j Mr Brassey declined to call any witnesses, ! and proceeded to address the Bench on behalf of the defendants. The learned counsel, in a very able speech, contended that there was no case on the part of the plaintiff by which he could recover, and quoted several cases in support of his argument. Mr Kenny replied at some length, and the Resident Magistrate said that the case was a most important one. After delivering a very lengthy judgment, his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £ll 12s, with £7 17s costs.