UNKNOWN

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4698, 18 April 1894, Page 3

UNKNOWN

Giuil Sittings. (Before His Honour the Chief Justice), A civil action was commences yesterday morning in which George William Smart, pawn-broker,of Wellington, Burs the Phienix Assurance Company, of London,fur tho recovery of £285, the value of fix pictures specially insured in that office. Mr Skerrett (with him Mr Young) appeared fir the plaintiff, and Mr Sinfford for tho dofendaut company, The facts of the case are, shortly (says the Prees), that on the 22 nd June, 1802, a propo<al was made to the Phoenix Assurance Company by Mr Smart fur the insurance of the aix pictures for tbcfollowing amounts: -£55, £SO, £SO, £4O, £4O, £4O. A policy was issued on tho 22nd ol August, and llio 6re by which fiveol them- were destroyed occurred on tb< 15tu Novcmlfljf l'Mi At tho time ol theproposal lor inßurance,the pictures wero hung in what phtintif tarmed biß art gallery, where the) could have been inspected by the inBurance any agont of thi company had (jiey chosen to do so Elaintijf had been asked to fill in tb< yalijo of the pictures, but, lio bad w accurate' idea of their value. Tin 1 yaijte, us works of art, bad been cati j mate| at £BBjj. The defendant com piny urged that plaintiff had i fraudulentmotive in making upbii valuation of the pictures, agains which it was pointed out by tin plaintiff that it had taken the com pany ten months to offer this defence Plaintiff went Home in 1890, am bought the pictures, with a number o others, for £3OO, from Thomas Nor ton, his brother-in-law, of the Whiti Swan public house, London, and the] had been brought to the Colon; without any payment of Custom duties. The defendant company contestei the claim on the ground that plaintii had Med'to furnish' formal proof o loss,'together with all documents am audi be reason Ably 1 domahdod,' in xbmpliahcb' wit the conditions of their policy.' Th company l had asked plaintiff for a: ;■ inV'oice or a copy 'thoreo'f in respect I ', ' the six pictures, but tho plaintiff But ,'. •; initted that the six had been purchase i■• ■•■ with othew, and! the invoice had bee destroyed in the ire, together with a Statements of freight charges and e; ;-:, tenses asked for'by defendar •,'i-'' iigjjflii?P a jtf' i Smart gave evi

denco as to purchasing tbe pictures from his brother-in-law in England. They wero insured by him in the Phconix Assurance Office, a clerk (Mr H. Smith) of that ollico calling upon him and asking him to insure. Cross examined by Mr Stafford, the witness admitted that 39 of the pici tures so purchased had been smuggled , into the colony by him. Witness took the canvas out of the frames, and , brought them out in tho rolls, Pictures i came out to bim in four different veseels—tho Hamolo and the ship Hima- ' hy'a amongst others. Hid statement . as to the value of the pictures was '. not a reckless one. The pictures had i an art value and a commercial value. Witness had offered tbe picture of the , Madonna and the child to Archbishop Redwood for £IOO, He did not remember having offend, any of the pictures to Mr fl. D. 8.-ll as a genuine iMurillo.

Seyeral other witnesses gave evidence amongst tbem bring James Nairn, artist, instructor at tho School of Design, said he had soen picture galleries in London aud the (Jjutin ent, Bnd had long experience of them, He mado two thorough rounds of Mr Smart's exhibition of piotnrcs, " Calumn.. 'was not, he thought, an original. There wan a big firm in Glasgow which employed inou at £1 a week lo oopy pictures, whioh Bold at £1 or 80s eioh. These pioturcs belonged to the fourth rato class of pictures, and he oarae to the conclusion that they were, not wonh spending a shilling on for a ticket. The valuo Mr Smart placed upon the pictures was far and away too great. Wm, Jobn Wratt, officer in H.M, Customs, eaid it was his duty to inspect goods aniving in the Colony, from papers in the office he found some pictures catno to Mr Smart in the Himalaya on October 15,1890. Among others there wore Bomovahioi! a 1£128103, No pictures came for I Mr Smart in the Hauroto about that time,

John H, Bolhune, repreaen ingtho Sun liißuranco Office, produced ono lof his office's proposal lorme,containing a column showing tho estimated value of the property. They thought that was a very important column, as on it they based their calculations of the rißk.

William I. Bolaro, acting niansgor of the New Zealand Insurance Company, gave eimilar evidence.

Tho plaintiff, recalled, in answer lo Mr Stafford, said the receipt for the pictures and all-other documents wero either destroyed by fire or stolen. He had not seoi them siuco Ihe fire, He saved his policy of insurance, which was in the safe, He did not own that ho Btnugglcd the piotures; he complied with all the Customhouse officer required of him. His Honor in summing up aubDlitlod certain questions for the jury to answer.

The jury retired st 6 p,ra. and re- 1 turned at 7.20 p.m, with tho followin? answers :-l. Was there substantial misrepresentation as to the values in the proposal and claim, or either of them, by overstating such values?-Yes, Is, Wis such overvaluation in tho claim gross and excessive ? -Yes. 2. Was the misrepreflentutijn false to the knowledge of the plaintiff ?—No. >B. Did the plaintiff honestly believe that the yaluen were such as represented in tho proposal and claim, or either, or which of them '!- Yea, as to the proposal ; no, as to the olaim. i. Did the misrepresentation of the proposal if made load to the making of the contract ?-No. 5. Was tho misrepresentation if made in the proposal fraudulently made ? II made in the oluim was it fraudulently made?— No. 8. Was tho information and explanations required by the defendants to be given by the plaintiff auch as wub reasonably required within the terms of the 9tli condition ? Yes, I Did the plaintiff before tho action substantially comply with tho requirements made by defendants ?- No, 8. If not, was it in his power lo do so ?—No, 0, Was he prevented from doing so by any oausenot under his control ?-Yes. 10, What waa the value of the property insured and destroyed ?—lnsured, £276, destroyed, £235.

His Honor entered up judgment for plaintiff for £235, and costs,