The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-01-03
COMP ANY
MUST PAY
Merriicourt Wins Suit
for Insurance Money.
LOWER COURT is UPHELD
The Supreme Bench Lays Down Law
in Decision in the Well
known Case.

After running the gamut of the Cir
cult and Supreme Courts and being
subjected to a tedious trial Arthur
G. Merricourt, of this city, has on
his suit against the Norwalk Fire In
surance Company, the Supreme Court
yesterday rendering a decision in ms
favor and sustaining the judgment Oh
the Circuit Court In all, Merricourt
receives Judgment against the company
Tor little over $1,000, to which is add
ed interest. The decision was written
by Justice Galbraith, CHER Justice
Frear and former Judge Stanley, sit
ting in place Of Justice Perry, absent.
concurring.
The case has attracted much atten-
ton, both in the courts and IN the
community, on account or the many
sensational developments which arose
during the trial. Merricourt owned a
house, newly constructed in Kahn, a
little over two years ago. 1t was
burned down one night and SUIT was
entered against the insurance compa-
ny for the amount of the policy. Inc
company claimed that the nfe was III
cendiary.
During the trial one Of the jurors,
Captain Cluney was accused of ~hav-
ing said things in regard to the case
prejudcial TO the company. IL was
claimed he had made statements that
would have disqualified him. Afnda-
Wits by a local detective We're put IN
evidence, but the court ruled tnat cap
tain Quincy had been misjudged and
was entitled to sit on the case. There
were two policies involved. One was
for the house and the other for the
contents. The Circuit Court jury re-
turned a verdict against the defendant
company for the full amount of the
house policy claimed, amounting to
$2,250. On contents their verdict was
for S2,S66 with accrued interest. Al
appeal was taken to the Supreme Court
OF exceptions and errors, sixty nine In
all.
tfhe Supreme Court states the law
relative to the case as follows:
The latitude allowed to counsel in the
cross examination of witnesses IS
largely in the discretion of the trial
court, and it is not proper course for
reversal, unless such discretion has
been oppreSSively abused.
Where proofs of loss are prepared in
the office and under the advice, aid
and instruction of the company's au-
thorized agent, the company thereby
valves the right to object to defects
in the proofs.
Evidence of previous fires in which
lected insurance, not admissible unleS.
the previous fires were part of the
system of frauds of which the fire Ii
question was an essential step.
An instruction asked by the defen
dant and modified by the court ant
| given in the following language: st
| you find that the insured did not trul,
state his interest in the property Gov
cred by either of the policies, as b.
stating that he owned property which
| in fact belonged to his wife, and dit
so deliberately, knowing the statemen
| to be false, then such policy is vol,
and the plaintiff cannot recover''-hel,
| to be a correct statement of the law
The trial of the cause commenced OF
| Tuesday and closed Saturday evening
on Friday morning defendants agen
and attorney learned of certain rumor
ed misconduct of one of the jurors in
dicating, on the part of the juror
strong bias and prejudice against in
surance companies. No notice of thi
fact was brought to the attention c
the court, and the trial continued t
verdict without objection. Held, tina
the defendant did not use proper dill
gence to entitle it to make the allege
misconduct of the juror the basis of
motion for new trial, that by sileno
and inaction it waived such right,
any existed.