DISTRICT COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3492, 4 March 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

v. , -. Yesterday.-: •-. ■-';, ;; -:. ,.. : ;-. (Before J. E. Macdonald,. Eiq., District j Judge.) - M. DBISCOLL T. NOBWICH UNION IN. SUBA.NCB CO. Claim, £50, damages for non-payment of amount of insurance policy. Messrs Tyler and Miller appeared for plaintiff, and Messrs Heskethud Brassey for the defendants. ... [The following is the continuation of the evidence adduced yesterday in" the above case:—] Mr H. Vernon,-flworn, continued— When he accepted the risk he was. satisfied with it. On the 13th of December he went to Mr Driscoll with the, renewal, notice. He saw Mrs Driicoll, but noon* else, and was asked to. call again. He stayed about three minutes. Called again on the 17th and saw MrsDriscoll, and said he had called about the insurance. . She replied she was not prepared to pay. Mrs ..Driscoll began speaking about life insurance, and said she would like to hare her husband's life insured. Told her he would bring up the books the first opportunity, and so far as possible gare her particulars. Called again on the 20th with „ the books, and again saw Mrs Driscoll. On both the 17th and 18th had a little refreshment. On the 17th had an opportunity of seeing the amount of stock in the place. No money was offered to him on the 13th or 17th, but on the 20th, there was. Mrs Driscoll said " I will pay you for the insurance," and put some . notes on the. table. He replied '' Never mind that now, I will see Mr Driscoll first." Mrs Driscoll asked "Why?" and he replied he had several reasons, and she put the money away with a motion of the hand. Never put the money in my pocket.. The receipt book produced was the one he had in use from the 17th December to January Ist* Never used anjtother, and never gave a receipt out of a^Pler book. If he gave a receipt on the 12th the butt must have appealed in the book. The person paying the < money always sign the receipt as well as the agent. The receipts.produced are all signed by the persons paying the premiums. Had no other books with | receipts with printed numbers on but those belonging to the Norwich Union Insurance Co. His reasons for declining the risk were because the bar looked , sparse or scantily supplied with goods. Had asked for refreshment to get an opportunity to look round. Do not know Mrs Hetherington, nor did not see her to his knowledge before yesterday. Never saw her in Mrs . Driscoll's before the month of December. Saw Driscoll on the 24th, but did not speak to him. If the premium was due on the 17th but paid on the 15tb, should date the block the 15th, and would fill up the body of the receipt from the 17th to the 17th of the next year. Went to the rums of the fire and then to Mrs Hetherington's, and there saw two men and Mrs Driscoll. Said to Mrs Driscoll " I see by the paper it is reported you are insured; have you the policy or the receipts?"' , She replied " They were all burnt, and said it was a-very bad job." I asked her " Have you not saved anything P" and she replied "All that wai saved are those few things in the oorner " I said " Pert

haps "the policy may he among them," and proceeded to examine them. Recommended Mrs Driscoll to send a telegram to her husband, which he wrote on a piece of paper. Before leaving the house had paid he would like to see Driscoll, because the morning paper said the policy had not lapsed. Saw hiss own register about 12 o'clock. Did not always acquaint the Auckland office when policies lapsed. If a fire occurred would always pcquaint them of the policy having lapsed. Uses his own discretion as to accepting risks but did not always acqunint the Auckland office of havini? declined to renew risks. Had no doubt that the policy had expired until he saw the paper. If Mrs Driscoll had given the £6 7s 6d should probably have : taken it provided the risk was a good one. f By"Mr Tyler: He was paid by commission; the Auckland agent generally decided whether renewals should .be taken. Denied that he had been dismissed from the Parawai Highway Board for embezzlement; and that he had made a false declaration in regard to money. He admitted that he had been censured for appropriating a load of firewood-; he resigned voluntarily; he never obtained more money from the Board than was owing to the worfrnM: The Board never requested him to resign forthwith, and save him a cheque for the .money owing him. He never asked the Board to hold overwhis resignation for a month; he neveS"wrote out his-resignation m the middle of a meeting and left the room. He did not think he had expressed his doubts to Mrs Driscoll on the-morning of the fire as to there-b«ing a»>olicy in existence." She never made any remark such as, " I'm sorry I didn't insure, or, It sa pity we let thcpoHcf expire. %y Mr Hesketh : He was Secretary for the Parawai Highway-Boa*^ The. Foreman of Works -BijfflM bis name to the accounts, declaring that they were correct, and the Board passed them. ; r lt was not his business to find'^llwhethef they were correct. One of-tbe^cftounts contained au item for timber:%i^iledj;o his own house, and was paid*|^oard. The niistakewastamd«afj*r3he chequ^ was given, and witness, paid the amount of his acteount to the Board, wh>ch •squared the matter. ; . , „t " The case for the defendants closed with Mr Yernon's evidence. ; , '^; :, V Mr Hesketh addressed: the Cdurt tordefendants. Never in hi« -life^had he heard such gross perjury^s bad been made by either one side or the other that it was quite evident from the evidence that the policy had never been renewed—that the plaintiff had not proved the case. He then commented on the nature of toe. evidence given by. each of the plaintiffs witnesses, referring especially sto the similitude of the testimony ot plamtiny Ms wife, and Mrs Hetherington, and concluded; by asking the jury -whether in the face of the evidence and the points he had raised they could give a verdict m favor of the plaintiff, thereby implying that the agent of the company at the Thames had committed a gross and deliberate fraud by giving a forged receipt. • . V". \ Mr Tyler in addressing the jury deroted himself to the question of whether the money had been paid, and reviewed the evidence at length. He contended that the story of the defendants was most improbable and inconsistent, and said that nothing could be more straightfor- ; ward than the evidence of Mrs Hetherineton, who was present when the money was paid to Yernpn. He considered the evidence of Mr Verndn, the principal iritnesi for the defence, very unsatisfactory and unreliable, >nd maintained that the Jury cbuTd not arrive at any other qpnclwon than that the money had been' paid, and as it had not been banked to the credit of the company thai it _had been pocketed by him, and he had given a receipt from a book other'than-that sapplied by the company. He asked the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff. ,: His Honor the Judge instructed the luiyy and summed up the evidence, pointing out that if: they, believed the money had been paid to, find for the plaintiff, if; on the contrary-to give the verdict for the defendant. The juryi after 5 miriutea' deliberation, gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £50.