DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4297, 17 December 1892, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor Judge Eobinson),

FRIDAY.

Okfioul Assignee v, Izard. The following evidence in this case was taken after we went to preßß yesterday;— William Budd, laborer, stated that he was in charge of Mr Pspworth's thrpshing machine when il was burnt, Mr Izard had asked witness how the fire occurred. He wag not able to tell them. Mr Izard had subsequently told witness to look after the'wreck until lie heard from tho bead ' office. Nothing waa said about payment, but expected iHr Izard to pay. Did not hold MrPapworth liable. Subsequently was directed to paokup tho machine and take it to some suitable placo in Ore) town. Took orders from no. other peraou than Mr Izari with reference to the machine. '•" By Mr Bkerrett: Did not hear any conversation between Papworfh and Izard. Mr Izard said I had better look after the wreck. S. E. Gapper, recalled ia answor to Mr Skorrott, said that the kter pro* ducel waß written by Mr Gawitb by witness'instructions, By Mr Powoall: The deed waß exeouted in the Hospital. Tho deed was not siguod by Papwortli or taken by witness as final, because cortain conditions bad to bs fulfilled, Pap. worth was to oommence an action but was too ill. Had offered to pay Izard's professional account and commenco an action, feeling sure there was a good case. If Mr Gawith oon sidered his offer a fair and equitable one, the deed would com* pleted on receiving & reply from Pap. worth, The reply did not come, Had therefore treated the document as worthless. Had proved for 'the full amount of his claim and did not con* eider be had any special interest in the insurance as it had been handeoV over to the Official Assignee. value of the macbino wbb L2OO. Had eold it at a

Jobn.B.Trioghnra, agent for the North German Insurance Oompany said lie first beard of the destruction of Papwortb'B threshing maohine by letter from Mr Izard. Beplied by telegram, : and subsiquently wrote stating that the .Company could not reoogniso any claim as it was a prohibited risk, and no proposal.had been, forwarded as provided' by the Company., Mr Izard subsequently came to' witness and, after discussion, resigned bigposition an; for tie Comr;wj\

Could not rotuerabui' tbo detailsotilio conversation, Tlie first duty of an Bgont whs to get a proposal signed and forward with a report to the oilier A triplicate receipt covering the risk for ten days should rtlso be given.to the awed. If the proposal and a cheque had beeir forwarded to Wellington .witness would have telegraphed tosay tho risk was prohibited and must be ounoelled. The Company did not recognise any olnira on the part of Mr Fnpwoith, becauso no proposal was signed, fjon-payraentof the premium would not have been a reason, By Mr Skerrett: If risks woro pro» bihitod by companies, instructions would be given to sub-agents. Did not know\vhat instructions Mr Izard had received. D. 3. Papworlh, recalled, stated that tho assignment brought lo him by Gapper when in the Greytown Hospital wan to have been completed ifMrGawith thought the arrangement fnir and equitable. Had sent a letter to Mr Gawith (which miscarried) stating that ns Mr Izard h»d notoredited the sevon pounds ton there would be no necessity to go to the expense of an assignment. W.B. Chennolls, Deputy Official Assignee guve evidence of the bankruptcy of D. S. Pnpworth. Witness st&tedbe was also agent for the London and Lancashire Insurance Company, ftisks on threshing machines wore accepted by him when the valuo whs fair,

i Mr Bunny at this stage asked that TVKtho defenoo state thestand it intended • taking in reference to the deed between Gapper and Papwortb. Mr Skerrett intimated that a motion for nonsuit would b-; applied for.

After considerable argument tho request of Mr Bunny lo admit Mr Guppei as a co-plaintiff was granted, Mr C'i P, Skerrett then applied for a Dousuit on several grounds, Mr Bunny opposed. His Honor decided to hear the defence,

John Lewis Rces, law clerk stated that Mr Izird was ngent for the North Germmi Fire Insurance Company, Witness did not intoifore in any way with Mr Izard's insurance business. Becolleoted Pjtpworth calling at Izard's office in his absence and asking witness to give a cheque for £7los to Mr Izard for an insurance. ToldMrPapworth.a proposal would be necessary. Mr Papwortb

said something about being busy aud

that he would como in as snon as ■0- ho could. Handed tho "cheque to Izard on bis return and told biro that Papworth was coming in on the firet opportunity to sign the proposal. Saw Papworth in Grey town on ■Easter Tuesday, Papworth called witness and asked if-Mr Izard was at home. Said he thought it would be a good opportunity to see Mr Izard, as . tho Maoris employed on the threshing machine had'got drunk on Easter Monday at the races, and had not returned to work. Papworth also asked witness if he knew where ho (Papworth could get more men. By Mr.Bunny: Had never transacted any insurance business before. Mr Izard always attended to his insurance business himself. Knew all about the other business, Had re- - ferred to the Association List, to see that what Papworth had paid was right, At this stage tho Court adjourned until Saturday morning, On the Court resuming this morn-

ing, Henry Stratton Izard, solioitor, tyfe.praotjsing at Grey town, deposed: The ' last witness, Bees, was his clerk, He had no authority to transact insurance business. On the 12th or 13th of April, Mr Bees handed a cheque for £7 10a to witness, Btating Papworth had given it to him and he (Bees) gave an ordinary office receipt. Bees said Mr Papworth would call again to see witness. Subsequently mat Papworth in the street and told him that be (witness) had got the cheque, but the thing was not fixed up. Papworth said he was' busy, but would come in. Witness said he had better bo quick, as ho (Papworth) was he insured. Alter the fire Papworth called at his office on the 25th. Teletter prod need whs written before the interview and the postscript afterwards. The interview was a lengthy one. Pxpwortb asked witness to g<> and see the wreok, but witness told Inni he could not go until he bad received instructions from thecompany

as be bad nothing to do with it, Eventually went out at Popworth's / request to view tho wreck and advised * bim for hia own interest to take tbe remains of the msobine to Greytown, Then seeing Budd about, called biui up and told bim be bad better look after tbe maobioo. Witness spoko inerelyas tbe moutfapieceof Papwortl:, When he.was appointed sub-agent for the North German Fire Insurance Co, be would swear be hover reoeived instructions forbidding tbe acceptance of risks on threshing machines, First saw tbe notion in Mr Tringbam's office at the interview after the fire. Always had a proposal signed for a .oootraot of insurance and gave the Company's cover receipt. Id sending to. the company forwarded tho proposal and wilnesfl' own cheque, Had Bent nothing to the company about . Papworth's insurance because no contract bed been made nor any proposal made out, Tbe first intimation witness received of a limitation of his authority to accept risks was from Mr Tiingham after the fire. Resigned as it was unsatiaA factory to set without inatruotiona. O Never told Mr Gapper or ■ Mr Papworth that the machine was properly insured. Declined to give evidence on tho matter, After Gapper wont out witness bad asked Papworth if ho

would like bis chequo for £1 10s back, or whether witness should ■*■ credit it against him. Papworlh said be bad not much and it was a bad business, but still thought wituess had better keep it,