The Portland daily press., 1885-09-17
PIscATAoUIs CO. S. J. COURT.
BEFORE JUDGE HASKELL.
TRepOrted for the Press.


DOVER, Sept. Is.
Adrianna Sweat vs. Piscataquis Mutual Insur-
ance Company. This is an action wherein the
plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant COM
pany the sum of $3.50, insurance, under policy No.
14,245, in the defendant company, issued March
%, 1877, and renewed March %, 1881, upon a
dwelling house and barn owned by the plaintiff,
and situated in CharleStown, which buildings
were destroyed by fire on the night of Nov. 20,
1888.
Defense, that the plaintiff set fire to the build
ngS, or caused the same to be set for the purpose
OF procuring the. insurance thereon; that the
buildings were of less value than $3.50, the
amount for which they were insured; that the oc-
cupancy had been changed after the buildings had
been insured without the consentOf the defendant
company, as required by the bylaws of the COM
panY; that the buildings which were
burned were vacant at the time of the fire,
and had been for a long time prior thereto
thereby rendering the policy null and void; that
the plaintiff misrepresented the value; and mis-
mortgage upon the buildings for $3.50 at the
time the insurance was effected, whereas in the
application for the policy plaintiff stated that the
property was unencumbered.
The plaintiff called M. w. Hall, secretary and
treasurer OF the defendant company, who produc-
ton of its board of directors relative to the claim
of the plaintiff
Melvin F. Martin, who resides near the place
where the buildings were situated, was called by
the plaintiff and testified to the burning of the
same, the location OF the fire when discovered and
its rapid progress until the buildings were con
fed that the plaintiff moved away from the place
in the month of October, prior to the fire. taking
all the furniture and household goods, leaving the
house vacant; that he visited the premises after
they were vacated; witness also described the 10
cation Of the various rooms in the house.
The plaintiff testified that in March, 1877, when
the insurance was effected, Mr.. Seth Lee, then an
agent and director of the defendant company
came to her house and inquired whether she
would like the buildings insured; that upon re-
ceiving reply in the affirmative, he went over the
house and the premises, and wrote out for her the
application in his own handwriting, which she
then signed. Witness testified that at that time
Lee asked her if there was any encumbrance up
on the property, and that she replied that there
was this mortgage for $3.50; that she then fixed
no value upon the property herself. and supposed
1t was fixed by Mr.. Lee himself. Witness further
company Dec, 10th, 1883, and that she had NOV
ed from Charlestown to Atkinson, Oct 18th 1888
where she has since resided.
The plalntlf stopped here and counsel for de-
PENDANT moved non suit upon the ground that
the occupancy of the buildings had been changed
thereby rendering the policy null and void The
The defendant called Joseph W. Robinson, of
Atkinson, who testified that late upon the even
returning from Sebec village to his home in
Charlestown; that it was very dark; that when
near Charlestown Hill, hearing footsteps in the
road, he stepped one side into the bushes, when
some object passed, which, in the darkness he
was unable to distinguish; that he then proceeded
on his way; that when near the foot of the hill he
discovered horse and carriage hitched by the
roadside; that he proceeded to the top of the hill
where he discovered the fire issuing from the
AvA buWcog coIHtI VI Tie Darn belonging TO the
plaintiff; that while observing the flames he saw
some object coming from the direction of the fire.
which he was unable to distinguish clearly, but
which he thought was man; that instead Of go
ing up or down the road, it crossed over and dis
appeared among the trees, and that he then pro-
ceeded on his way home
The defendant company also introduced testi-
m0ny to show that one Ballard who resided with
the plaintiff, visited the home of Mr.. Lee, who had
effected the insurance shortly before the burning
and finding Mr.. Lee absent, inquired of his son
whether Il the house should be burned while it
was vacant, the insurance could be recovered and
that the son replied that he thought it could
In rebuttal, testimony was offered to show that
both the plaintiff and Ballard were at home on the
evening Of the fire, and as to the value of the
property destroyed.
Arguments closed, and the case win be given to
the jury Wednesday morning
Ephralm Flint and Josiah Crosby for plaintiff.
Henry Hudson, c. A. Everett and A. M Robin
son, for defendant
William H. Parsons and John K Robbins, who
before the lower court severally pleaded not gull
W on search and seizure complaints were arraign-
ed and retracted their pleas of not guilty and
pleaded nolo contendere, and were each sentenc-
ed to pay a fine of 500 and half costs. Fines
and costs paid.