The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-01-03
n0RWiLk COMPANY LOSES
n nEnaIcOURI SUIT
IT MUST PAY TWO INSURANCE
LOSSES eY DECISION OF
SUPREME COURT.
Exceptions Taken in Appeal Did Not
Hold Water-AIiesed Misconduct
of Juror Analysed TO Detrimea.
Of Defense.

The Merricourt insurance case,
cal insurance circles. has been decided
by the supreme court In the decision
handed down by the higher court and
the opinion written by Judge Gal
braith there was found no sufficient
reason for reversal. and the exception
from the circuit court were overruled,
and Judgment affirmed
II will be remembered that the legal
difficulties between Arthur G. Merri-
court and the Norwalk Fire Insurance
Company involved two policies of in
surance. one on the house and the
other on its contents. and the cases
were consolidated. and tried as one
action. but separate veriicts were
turned verdict against the defend
ant for the full amount claimed. ST.
$50, and on the contents for $3.50.
with interest from the date the de-
mands accrued. the aggregate being
s., lilo. The house was compare
lively new one at Kalihi. built by p
O'Sullivan- The defendant appealed
to the. supreme court on exceptions,
alleging sixty-nine separate errors of
the trial court
In the exceptions the ground was
taken that the latitude allowed to the
counsel in the cross-examination of
witnesses was largely in the discretion
of the trial court. and was not a
discretion had been oppressively
abused
It was also contended that where
proofs of loss are prepared in the Of
fee and under the advice and instruc-
tion of the company's authorized agent
the company waives the right to OBJ
ject 10 defects in proofs.
In the evidence of previous fires in
which the plaintiff has suffered loss
and collected insurance should not be |
unless the previous fires |
were a part of system of frauds of |
which the fire in question was an es-
sential step.
Another contention raised was that |
the trial commencing on Thursday |
closed Saturday evening. while on Fri |
day morning the agent of the Norwalk !
Fire Insurance Company and its at |
torney learned of certain rumored |
of one of the jurors, indi-
eating on the part of the juror strong |
bias and prejudice against insurance
No notice Of this fact was
brought to the attention of the court, |
and the trial continued till verdict |
vas reached, without objection. In
his was held that defense did not use |
proper diligence to entitle it to make |
he alleged misconduct of the juror
he basis of a motion for a new trial,
Ind that by silence and inaction it
waived such right, if any existed.
In the opinion handed down Judge
ialbraith goes on to state that it was
apparent that the Norwalk Insurance
Company was allowed considerable
attitude in search for fraud. Under
he law the latitude allowed counsel
n the examination of witnesses is left
argely to the discretion of trial courts
md the appellate court is not inclined
o reverse judgement on this ground
lnless the discretion has been clearly
ibused. It was also the opinion of
he higher court that the discretion
-ested in the trial court was not op-
,ressively abused
The court also state that motion for
new trial on the grounds of the mis-
onduct of Juror does not warrant
he reversing the ruling of the circuit
Judge on the point under the rule an
bounced by the Supreme Court of Ha-
yaii, as the affidavit and application
or new trial shows that the insurance
ompany knew of the alleged miscon-
uct of the juror the second day be-
ore the end of the trial, and if it
nade no attempt after the receipt of
his knowledge. and after the verdict
f the jury. it is believed that due dill
gence was not shown, and by such
Hence and inaction waived the right
or new trial.