The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-10-07
Comments Made On InSur-
anCe Co. Policies.
An EmplOye Brings Suit
Against His Employer.
The Ladd-Gay Verdlcts s-Pawtucket
Mans Claim-Grand Jury.

hearing was had this morning In
the suit of Walter Cornell against the
Tiverton d Little Compton Mutu al Fire
Insurance Company in the Appellate
Court. 1t was one OF four cases on
the docket for the day in which jury
trial had been waived, and was brought
by the plaintiff, who is minor, through
his guardian, Lydia A. Wright OF this
city, to recover the sum of 1916 alleged to
be due on an Insurance policy.
In 1891 Asa Cornell, who has since de-
ceased, insured dwelling house, barn
and carriage house in Tiverton, and on
the 27th of June, 1892, died. On July II,
1895, the dwelling house and barn refer
red to were destroyed by fire. There was
a number of conferences between Mrs.
Wright and the officers OF the company,
and though the latter were at first will
ling 10 pay the policy they finally re-
fused 10 SO DO. There seemed from the
testimony TO be a misunderstanding be-
tween the parties to these conferences,
but the testimony in this regard was by
no means as interesting as other things
brought out in regard to insurance poll
cies.
One of the provisions of the policy
provid ed that IL the premises insured
were ever vacant or slterations made the
policy would become void.
James Tilling hast, counsel for the de-
fendant company, maintained that this
policy was void on the former account.
This lead to an interesting discussion of
the present standard insurance policies.
Mr.. Tillinghast maintained that after a
careful examination OF the authorities he
was convinced that a leaving of house
unoccupied did make void the policy.
MIR. Justice Tilling hast wanted to know
IL he left mis- house for one night IL that
made the policy void.
Mr.. Tillinghast would not say that 1t
would, but that there were cases in which
three days absence affected the policy.
Then Chief Justice Matteson said "the
insurance company then can pay or not
as il sees Il t."
Mr.TiIlinghast then condemned in very
strong language the standard policies re-
Gently adopted by the insurance compan-
les and approved by the General Assem-
bly,.
The main point on which the present
case turned, however. whether the
plaintiff could recover as there was pro-
vision in the policy that an insurance
policy that was in force on property de-
vised must be revived and that the presi-
dent and secretary Of the company must,
as in cases where the policy is transferred
endorse the same. There was also pro-
vision In the policy that the president
and secretary might waive a provision OF
tie policy. IL was claimed that the Off
GERS named did in fact waive the provi-
sion in regard to requiring a revival of
the policy.
Mrs. Wright, the guardian of the plain
tiff, testified that Secretary Brownell and
president Joseph Wsr1ell of the insurance
compan,, had both promised to pay the
Policy after they knew of the death Of
Asa, and that Mr.. Wardell had been on
the guardians bond of the boy Walter.
secretary Rrownell testified that he Gid
not know that Mr.. Cornell left will
when he promised to settle the claim,
and that Mrs. Wright simply told him she
was the guardian OF the heirs, and said
nothing about the will. Treasurer Will
bur said he told Mrs. Wright the policy
would be paid as soon as an investigation
was made, and that the fact that the
house that was destroyed had been vacant
for some months before the fire, though
not ut the time it was burnt, led to the
company's delaying payment OF the
money alleged to be due.
Asa Cornell left four natural children,
one Of whom is the plaintiff in this case,
and he provided for them all in his will.
Secretary Brownell stated that most OF
the business of the defendant company
was dono in the town clerks office of
Little Compton, though the company
had an Office in a store IN the same town
where its safe was kept.
Wilson n Jenckes were attorneys for
the plaintiffs aud Mr.. Jenckes made a
brief argument after all the testimony
was in, as did MIR. Tillinghast for the de-
fendant company.
CLAIMS SURVEYOR INJURED PROPERTY.
The next case heard was that OF Jere-
miah Breault VS.. Commits ioner Of Public
Works Laid OF Pawtucke. The plain
tin claimed that the defendant had
built a wall on Japonica street in Novem-
Der, 1898, while highway commissioners,
that greatly damaged his property. Mr..
Breault claims that the water that flows
into his house by reason of the wall has
prevented him from letting the same. The
defendant claims the building of the wall
was necessity in ORDER to put the street
In proper condition for travel.