The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-02-21
II WAS MOI CANCELLED.
WHAT JUDGE sPEER SAID ABOUT
COL. WAYS INSURANCE. POLICY.

Court on the Law in the Plaintiffs
FavOr-The First Plea of the De-
PENDANT Did Not HoId as There
Was no Offer to Pay the Pro RATA
Of the Return Premium in Current
Funds.
Col Charlton II. Way won his suit
against the Royal Insurance Company of
England in the United States court yes
terday.
Mr.. John NicoIson, Jr., for Col. Way,
concluded his argument about 1920 O'Clock
and Judge Speer then delivered his charge
to the jury, which retired at 1875 o'clock,
and returned, shortly before 2 O'Clock, TO
be recharged. The jury was dined at the
De Soto, and returned TO a consideration
Of the case in the afternoon. 1t was about
O'Clock when the following verdict was
returned and read by the clerk of the
court
eve, the jury. find for the plaintiff in the
sum of 5000 with interest, at the rate of
per cent. per annum from the 18th day
of February, 1894 We also find 81 as dam
ages and $500 as attorneys fees. and also
costs of court. G. N. Ryals, foreman"
In his concluding argument, Mr.. NicOl-
son severely criticised Mr.. w. L. Wilson,
one of the agents of the company here,
I and said that there were striking incon-
sistencies in his testimony. He alluded es-
pecially 10 the fact that Col. Way had
been under the impression that there was
five days clause in the policy, and said
that, while Mr.. Wilson had stated that he
had never had any conversation with Col.
/ Way on this line, Mr.. Wilson had, never
theless, written to the home office. as was
shown by the correspondence, that Col.
Way was laborlng under the impression
that there was a five day clause IN the
policy, and he had decided to leave him I'M
deceived in this respect. He stated
also that there were striking in
! consistencies between the state
ments made BY Mr.. Wilson and
his partner, Mr. W. T.. Grady, and Tor
these reasons he argued that the tesu-
[ mony UNFOLDING the pleas should not be
| given any considerable weight by the
| jury. He argued that the testimony
showed that Mr.. Wilson had endeav-
/ ored to secure additional insurance for
/ Col. Way. and that the real grounds
for the cancellation of the policy were
| that the company did not care TO carry
/ country risks.
In charging the jury. Judge Speer first
1 covered the grounds on which the action
I was brought He stated that
/ the plaintiff was suing for $4,000 the
/ amount of the policy. with interest .
/ per cent. damages on the ground of bad
( faith on the part of the company, and for
1 $3.50 reasonable attorneys fees. He then
( stated the pleas which had been adduced
/ by the defendant, namely that the policy
! had been avoided by the securing of adj
ditional insurance by the assured which
was in violation of the terms of the con-
( tract, and secondly that the policy had
/ been cancelled, and the amount due as
j a return premium sent 10 the assured.
| Judge Speer took up the testimony Of
( Mr. Wilson with regard TO the efforts
/ Of Col. Way to secure additional in
| surance. Mr.. Wilson had stated that at
/ Col. Ways request he wired his COM
i pany to ask if it would take additional
Insurance on Col. Ways property but
/ at the same time, unknown to Col Way,
he said he had sent a telegram to his
company instructing it to refuse such
\ additional insurance. He had also stated
! that he endeavored to secure additional
/ insurance for him from other agents,
/ and when asked why he did this, said
that "other agents might look out for
themselves"
With regard to the testimony that after
! Col. Way had obtained additional insur-
ance in other companies, he notified
Messrs Wilson & Grady, both verbally and
/ by letter, on Jan. 49, 1894, which Mr.. Will
! son denied, saying that no such notice was
]
the date was immateriaI. Judge Speer
/ said in this connection:
/ I do not consider it important for you
/ to determine whether the letter was de-
| hvered by Way in person, or sent by mail
or whether he gave verbal notice of the
/ additional insurance, or confined this no
! tice to the letter which Wilson admitted
| was received on the 31st-some four or five
/ days before the fire. / have endeavored
/ to state such undisputed facts as may
! enable you to render proper verdict, in
| order that you may avoid the necessity
4 of imputing perjury to either of these two
! gentlemen, who have otherwise in the
| case sworn in a manner entirely contradic-
| tory the one to the other. 1t is the duty
of the court and your duty to avoid that
If we lawfully can. The important facts
| are that Way informed the agent that he
! desired additional insurance, that the
/ agent assisted him in getting it, that he did
not openly object, but SO far as was COM
/ municated to Way telegraphed to his
/ company, inquiring if they would take an
! additional line on Way" at the same time
1 privately and without Ways knowledge,
/ advising them not to do it, and that Way
4 afterwards obtained the insurance and
notified them in writing. which they re-
ceived either on the 18th or 31st, it mat
ters not, that the additional insurance
| had been effected"
Judge Speer then went on to charge
/ Ihal LneSe facts dld not AVOID the pOUCN,
although the second clause of the policy
I prohibited the assured from obtaining
any further insurance without the writ
/ ten consent of this company. 1t would
4 be entirely competent for the company
/ TO change its contract, he said, and this
| the local agents had power to do The
/ company or its agents might take action
| which would expressly waive that clause
! of the policy. Judge Speer said where
there was q conflict of authority on this
. subject he was entirely guided by the
unanimous decision of the state supreme
/ court in the case of Caruga vs.. the At
lantic Fire Insurance Company, 40 Ga,
14l-l42. 1t was well considered case,
he said, argued by such distinguished
lawyers as Benning, Ramsey ana Russell
and Moses and Garrard, and it was the
unanimous decision of the supreme court
/ Of Georgia when such great jurists as
Joseph E. Brown, II. K. Mccoy and
Hiram Warner were the judges of the
/ supreme court. He then quoted the Ian
I guage Of the decision.
This" he said, u charge you to be the
( law. I further charge you that If you