Amador ledger., 1902-11-21
SUIT TO RECOVER INSURANCE
Speer Bros. Sue the Scottish Union and
National on Four Policies, on Which
Payment of Loss Was Refused

The suit of W. E. Speer and Arthur
Speer against the Scottish Union and
National Insurance Company to re.
cover the sum of $1S19 80 with interest
at seven per cent was commenced in
the superior court on Monday morning.
A jury trial was waived by both par
ties, so that the court alone is to de-
eide the issues involved. The case has
been pending for over Is months.
Plaintiffs side of the case is looked
after by w. j. McGee and John F.
Davis, while defendants attorney is
J. w. Goodman of San Francisco, an
attorney who is evidently specialist
in insurance cases. and who is also as
sisted by G. P. Vicini. The plaintiffs
were owners of Granite station, near
New York Ranch, and outbuildings
connected Herewith, consisting of
dance hall, barn, blacksmith's shop,
and personal property contained there
in. On this property they took out
four separate policies of insurance, in
the Scottish Union, covering all the
property liable to damage by fire. The
policies were written by L. J. Fonten-
rose, and signed by Mrs. L. j. Fonten-
rose as agent for the insurance corpo-
ration. During the night of the 11th
of November, 1900, fire occurred, re-
sulting in the total loss of the build
ings and personal property, comprising
hay, barley, liquors, furniture, etc.
The origin of the fire was wrapped in
mystery. The agents of the company
were promptly notified, and an ad-
iuster appeared on the scene of the fire
about week after the occurrence in
company with L. j Fontenrose to esti-
mate the loss. The policies provided
that in no case shoald the company in
case of loss be liable for more than
three-fourths of the value of the prop
erty at the time of the fire Appraisers
were appointed and an umpire to fix
the value of the loss and the amount
the company should pay under the
three-fourths clause. They reported,
but still the company declined to put
up, and finally suit was brought to re-
cover the sum above named, being the
amount awarded by the arbitrators.
Every legal obstacle was resorted to
by the defendants, and twice the COM
plant had to be amended before it was
found proof against demurrer. II
seems that plaintiff had previously insu-
red dwelling on the Speer ranch, two
miles distant from the station, in the
same company, and this property was
destroyed by fire few months before
the fire occurred which swept the sta
tiOn property. The loss on the ranch
dwelling house was promptly paid by
the company. The second fire follow
ing so close upon the other, awakened
suspicion and led the company to in
vestigate closely, resulting in de-
termination to contest. The company
tries to avoid payment on the ground
that it was fraudulent fire.
w. E. Speer was the first witness, and
was on the stand Tuesday morning and
all day Wednesday. 1t was brought
out on cross-examination that no
one slept on the premises on the night
of the fire; that no one had lived there
steadily for three weeks preceding the
fire. That his brother was in the habit
of going to the station in the morning,
working in the blacksmith shop and
the saloon, and returning to the ranch
home at night. That on November 8
a dance was held in the hall, and both
Speer boys were there all that mig ht,
but from that time until the fire no one
had slept on the premises, except his
brother for one night and he was not
positive about that. He claimed there
was 45} tons of hay in the barn at the
time of the fire; no horses, harness or
wagons, the hall had nothing therein;
two stoves in the dwelling and guam
tity of barley, flour, liquor and cigars
in the saloon and store, all of which
was destroyed. The witness was SUBJ
ject to cross-eXamination, but stood
the ordeal without any material i'm
pairment of his evidence in chief.
Arthur Speer, A. G. Barrett, 7. Bar
rett, and one or two others testified,
and the plaintiffs closed their case
Thursday afternoon. The defense
introduced no testimony. A number
of witnesses had been supoened, but
were not called. The case was not
argued orally, but will be submitted on
briefs; plaintiffs wavering the opening
brief; defendant to have 10 days to file
brief, and plaintiffs 10 days thereafter
to file answering brief.
There is no doubt, whichever way
the matter is decided, that it will be
appealed to the higher court. The
defense seems to rely upon the failure
of the insured parties to send in proofs
of loss within the time allowed by the
policies, and also on the fact that the
premises were not occupied at the time
of the fire.