The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-07-28
GS. PHINNEY WINS.
Verdict for Almost the Full
Amount Of Insurance.
me- POLICY NOT FORFEITED.
amt,s New Bond Rejected and He n
n Custody-Cedar Mountain Nina
Again In Litigation.

Mr.. Guy c. Phinney secured a verdic.
sfMeI24 in her case against the Mu.uai
Y4s Insurance Company OF New Yora fo-
eoe0o. which she claimed was due her on
! policy carried by Mr.. Phinney. Ths
1ury was out just four hours. and once
suysng that time returned for instruction..
a law points. The case was hard fought
Srom beginning to end, and was a very
Important one TO the company, as Il viii
rrohabIy result In the Inauguration or =
rumber OF similar actions. The platnt,Y
Nod her case on New York statute ana
4ouxf,t IL out on that point The defense
maintained that the company had a right
% cancel the policy upon the non-payment
= the second and third premiums bv Mr
painney, and INTRODUCED testimony IN
support Of that contention. The closing
arguments by Mr.. Gilman. for the de-
fense, and Mr.. Burieigh. for the plaintiff.
we're mastery efforts. and showed much
study and preparation. The case viii now
= carried TO the United States court Of
appeals.
Mr.. Gilman resumed his argument nj
The beginning of the morning session. and
spoke for about fifteen minutes He saii
shs evidence showed clearly that Mr.
Yhinney had not paid his second or third
premiums, although he did make q tender
~ some notes and money. He eaid The
hea Of a man like Guy Phinney letting a
friend have his policy TO Use for canvass
INK purposes. II he knew the policy was
good. was preposterous. He knew the poll
lev was void and worth nothing to him.
Mr. Burleigh then addressed the fury.
ard made an eloquent and forcfbls presen-
tafion Of the plaintiffs case. He claimed
that the failure or neglect OF the defend
Art company to comply with the statute
Of the state OF New York I'm not having
given the statutory notice 10 Mr.. Phinney
Of the date when the premium would be
due was fatal to It's case. as a waiver in
the policy could not override the law The
policy had never been forfeited. and could
not have been forfeited except upon legal
notice having been given. whether Mr..
Yhinney had paid three premiums or only
ore. There were numerous authorities in
support OF this contention. He ridiculed
the ad misericor6iam appeal OF counsel
for the defense, who had stated that IL
vas not the company that would suffer
n the plaintiffs case should prevail but
ths policy holders. What a pitiful case
was theirs. A company with q surplus of
tSa0s 900. which IL had wrung from the
public by just such means as had been
employed in the case OF Mr. Phinney, Of
Sering Itself as a fitting subject for SYM
PATTY. Look how ii had treated Mr..
Phinney. When II found that his health
was falling, the officers wrote to their
premiums" and they did Decline and the
premiums already paid were swept into
their Golfers and went 10 swell the sur
plus at the expense OF the widow and
fatherless. He then went into the testi-
mony OF Stinson and the dispositions Of
the officers of the company, and asked the
Jury to fully consider the matter and
bring in verdict for the widow.
Judge Hanford. In his charge, told the
Jury that. the company not having COM
Piled with the New York statute under
which IL was chartered, was liable
on that ground. The jury was TO say
whether the policy had been surrendered
or was regarded by Mr. Phinney as hav-
!ng fapsed. II the fury believed tina,
the policy had been voluntarily aban-
donsd by Phinney with a full knowledge
OF his rights. II should find for defendant,
but II II did fot find that the policy had
been abandoned It should find for the
plaintiff
The jury retired at II o'clock ana re-
turned at .. m. for instructions on law
points II again retired 10 its room. and
AZ I o'clock returned with the verdict
already named