ALLEGATION OF ARSON.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10069, 15 June 1910, Page 7

ALLEGATION OF ARSON.

CHARGES NOT PROVED. | PL AINTIFP R EGO VEli S~""""" JUDGMENT. An interesting jixigment wab delivered in the Supreme Court Wellington by his Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert, Stout, in the ease of Emily Ada Prosser v. the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Ltd. The claim was for the sum of £l7O under a policy of fire insurance, it being stated fmst the value of the insured goods losi in the fire amounted to £l7O. At the hearing Mr P. J. O'Regan appeared for the plaintiff and Mr T. fvl. Wilford for the defendant company. THE DEFENCES. There were substantially five defences of which evidence was adduced."as follows:—1. That the goods destroyed were not the gcods oi the plaintiff, 2. That false answers were given to questjons put in the 1 proposal for insurance, and hence that the policy is void. 3. That the plaintiff omitted to state certain things that she ought, to have stated I namely, that her husband had been \ insured, and that a fire had occurred 'in his shop, the goods in which were insured, and that his policy had been cancelled. 4. That the plaintiff made a false claim: that she claimed for a sewing machine that was not injured in the fire and for goods E-avcdi'rom the tire. 5. That j the fire was wilfully caused by the J plaintiff or by her inducement. In giving judgment His Honour was of opinion that the evider.ee was not sufficient to warrant a court in finding that the plaintiff had committed awon, cr procured this crime to be permitted. Suspiions were not enough,for, as has often been said,the crime must he'proved as completely as if the plaintiff had been charged with arson. In His Honour's opinion, therefore, the defence in this action failed. He might, however, add that there were many circumstances in the case which, he thought, showed that the case was properly defended, so that the plaintiff should be called upon to prove her case before the i court. In his opinion, the court cauld in this guided only by the claim put in. It amounted to £l7O made up of—machines £3o,fitures £5, and stock £2O, and the balance furniture ana other goods. In this claim, , however, there is an error in addition of £5 lis. The amount of the list is put down at £ll fi. In fact it only amounts to £lO9 9s. Then, in the list there is a claim for three machines, but one was uninjured, and its value must be deducted. The amount claimed for the machine is 1 £7. The total amount the plaintiff is entitled to is?, therefore, £l7O, less £l2 lis, namely, £157 9s, for which His Honour gave judgment, with cost 3to scale. He allowed only for a second day, as, though the hearing took three days, they were only parts of the second and third days. Seven guineas costs were allowed for the second day. | j j |