The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-01-18

TIM
policy in this particular have been made ineatonq
and soilfuy 13 Am. & Eng Enc Law I'd ed $40 Co. and
numerous cases cited in note
GA fire policy provided that in of loss the insured bo
submit examination under oat required by the insu,
and that any fraud false swearing by the insured should avoid
the policy Upon examination SO had the insured included
in his of loss sewing machine which had NOT l
destroyed In action the policy he testified that at M
time of making such affidavit he thought that the machine had
been burned but that he afterwards sceaned to the contrary
The machine subsequently discovered outbuldnp
underneath wood admitted to have been drawn piled
by the insured the day before held that instruction
that the policy voded by the false of the insured
properly refused" Knop Nat Fire ms Co. 1o7 Mich
323
Other authorities Tubs Daoeing House ms Co. 81
Mich &c. Boyd o. Royal ms Co. III n c. 372 In view Of
these authorities that the motion for prop
e denied and that the instruction offered correctly mod
fed to state the law. The exceptions overruled
FTM 1t further contended that the erred u
tanning the objection hypothetical questions asked of the
alleged expert witness relative previous fires and losses m
tanned by the plaintiff and also the proofs of loss such fires
when offered as evidence of fraud.
When the question ISSUE" says the Supreme Court Of
Massachusetts, was whether the sued forged
the defendant offered testimony of the declaration of the plain
tiff to his ability to initiate signatures The holding
rightly rejected this evidence. person
accused of competent show evidence
corpus dect that he has committed similar oense that he
of bad character that he has the capacity
committing the crime The argument in favor of admitting
such evidence plausible It might aid the jury they should
know the character of the defendant whether he
ally and physically able and liable commit the but
the law excludes such evidence the grounds of public policy
to the multiplication of issues and protect
party from the injustice of being called upon without
explain the of his life connected with the
offense charged.
Eff the fact that defendant committed similar crime
is not admissible difficult how less pregnant evidence
that he had the disposition capacity and
can be competent Costello Costello 139 Mass 2SS
It considered general reasonable presumption
be drawn the making the execution of by
party with person consequence of the mode which he
has made executed similar with other persons"
1 Phillips Ev. C1S49 Ed.) 400
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts announced the correct
rule this subject in Fooe Child 1854 Mass 213 where
said Acs which part of general scheme plan
fraud designed and put by the person.
admissible prove that which has been done by
In fact done by the who designed and pursued
the plan if the act in question necessary part PLAN
Citing cases.
In later case the court passing upon exception
the ruling of the trial excluding evidence previous fires
d Ihe issues upon which the excluded evidence offered
raised by the defendants allegation that the fire
the plaintiff and by his procurement and with his consent
offer to show that two fires had before which
the plaintiff and his brother who the jury might have found
had interest in the loss for which this suit was brought
had met with losses for which they had insurance
that nine other fires had also previously of
which relation relatives of the plaintiff had met with
losses covered by insurance for which they received payment
insurance There offer show that any of these
set by the plaintiff by his procurement All of these
hres except the first two which the plaintiff
had no interest," and all of them plainly inter alo
he first two fires Independent other occurring
IN the 1888 and the other the year 1891 and neither
them connected with the fire now in question which oc
Cured in the year 1893 If all of the fires parts
tempted frauds they clearly Independent frauds and
part of system of fraud of which the in question was
essential STEP None of the evidence which was excluded