The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1903-07-17
ESTABLISHED 1886.
MUST PAY THE INSURANCE.
Reta Farley Given Judgment for
$500 for Goods Destroyed in Fire.
Defense Was Unable to Establish AssumP-
ton That Plaintiff Set Fire to CONNER
eiaI HOteI-New Trial Refused
Appeal VIII Be Taken

for damage, handed IN a verdict Sun
day morning, allowing the plaintiff to
recover 1902 on a $1,000 dollar insurance
policy. which covered the furnishings Of
the Commercial hotel when it was
burned last August, and the payment
of which had been withheld by the com
pany upon the alleged grounds that Mrs.
Witham Retta Farley set fire to the
building for the purpose OF defra uding
the defendants.
The case, which began Wednesday
morning was not given to the jury until
Saturday at six o'clock in the evening,
and it was vigorously contested BY both
sides all the way through. Retta Far
ley was represented by A. P. Tone Viii
son, Of Colby, and Tod Reed, Of Smith
Center. The insurance company re-
tanned Attorney E. F. Murphy.
Two days were consumed in getting
Jury. At the time Of the fire there was
considerable excitement and the great
majority Of the people we're free to form
their own opinions, but finally the pan
mel of u men was agreed upon and the
introduction Of evidence began. Many
witnesses were summoned on both sides,
and dispositions from two persons who
now live outside of GOOdland, but wit
messed the fire that night, we're read.
Miss Farley, the plaintiff, was put on
the stand aud examined and cross ex-
amined. She told Of the household
furnishings in the hotel that belonged
to her, and placed a value on many OF
the items and also gave lump estimate,
saying that. the value of all he property
burned aggregated about s2,4OO. The
defense was a little surprised at these
figures and tried to make the point that
the amount was greatly exaggerated, but
she held fast to that valuation.
Witnesses who were familiar with the
furnishings Of the hotel were put on the
stand and gave a description Of the va
rious rooms and how they were provided.
Thomas P. Leonard, who was once the
proprietor Of the Commercial had ex-
amined the rooms in the matter of in
surance, and Mrs. J. V. Seeley, who took
az invoice of the goods with view TO
buying out Miss Farley, and Mrs. Vim
cent, the predecessor Of Miss Farley in
the hotel, were examined long and min
uteIy as to the possessions of the plant
if, which were held to have been con-
sumed.
During the process Of the trial it was
brought out that Miss Farley paid Mrs.
Vincent about $40 for her interest in
the furnishings of the hotel. The plant
if fitted up the hotel and gave it a bet
ter equipment than it had had for years
and when Mrs. Seeley proposed to buy
out Miss Farley, price of $500 was put
upon the goods, some reservations being
made. The plaintiff also said that when
asked to put a price upon the hote
furnishings by Mrs. Potter, she asked
$1,000.
After the evidedce was all in, a. P
Tone Wilson, counsel for the plaintiff
made the opening argument. He
mentioned in detail much of the stuff
kept in the Commercial and reviewed
evidence to show that the amount o
the policy was far below the real value
of the articles insured. He appealed Il
the Jury to disregard the little SUSPICION
evidence which the defense had tried Z
magnify into great proportions. 9Th
fact said he, that because upon thi
particular night the bell rope Of the frt
alarm at the water works happened &
be thrown out Of reach upon the roof o
the building, or that few weeks befOr
the Commercial was burned down, FIR
started in one Of the second story rooms
which was extinguished; ought thes
things, which are no more suspicion
than incidents that may be throw
around every fire, determine the unfaJ
orable decision of the jury in this case?
He then showed IN evidence the lids c
plaintiffs watch and the clasp OF he
pocket book, which was testified to hav
contained s63-things that were de-
stroyed in the FIRE and not insured. "Hs
Miss Farley entertained incendiary pul
poses would she have left all her mgnel
her gold watch and her diamond rinl
in the building9" He said. Attorne
Wilson vas much wrought up over th
case and made hard fight.
Attorney Murphy was given an hoU
to make the argument for the defsns
He endeavOred to show that, along wit
other suspicious circumstances whic
attended the IRE, was the fact that som
of the articles enumerated in the bill {
loss were doubly too high. II do NJ
intend TO be over wary in this matte
of valuations" he said, shut it seems
me that when person buys a new piaI
for $40 and then attempts to sell it
the insurance company, by burning
for S275, there must be a niger in 4
woOdpile. a base burner which hs
been in the hotel since time immemOri
and was valued at So, is here attempts
to be palmed of on the defendant (
the bIushing sum Of $50. Can anYoi
tell me that these excessive prices We
not laid for questionable purpOses3 b
the stuff in that hotel been insured
more moderate sum and the articI
put in at something near their. real val
tho-s v-or,T1 Ia -orna raazou m think IN