Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-03-30


should have been hung in this little
dining-room closet intended for dishes
and not for clothes and unprovided
with hooks. In preference to the
spacious closet 5 feet by 81. feet OPEN
ing out Of Mrs. ROvinskis own cham
Der which was found to contain only
one old skirt and an old coat. 1t is
incredible that she should have made
this first visit to her old home after
her marriage without taking with her
at least such part OF this fine apparel
as was appropriate to the season. 1t
| is claimed on part of the plaintiff that
she took with her only dress suit
case but the weight of reliable evil
dence discloses the fact that two
| trunks left this house the day or her
departure and that these were not the
| trunks of the rOomerS. III II were
| nossihle that all of these articles could
have been packed in such a closet, 1t Is
| utterly improbable that thev should
| nave o. on wholly consumed by fire
so promptly extinguished. The floor
IF the closet was not burned and the
| wooden door on which some of the
| clothes were said to have been hung
was only burned at the top and still
turned on it's hinges. No identifying
| relics, either buttons, hooks. umbrella
| wires or other metallic attachments
could be found in the debris.
Again in addition to the pictures VAL
ued at $1,000, and the mirror ait $500, the
schedule comprises items of silverware
and fancy articles of the alleged value of
$239 90, in regard to which the plaintiffs
evidence is equally contrary to reason
and probability. The inference is that
if all these articles were ever in the
house. the most Of them had been re-
moved and were not there at the time
of the fire.
(2) The evidence showing fraudulent
over valuations is still more positive and
convincing. The law governing both of
these propositions is well settled in this
state. If the plaintiff falsely and know
ingly inserted in his sworn schedule of
loss. as burned, any single article which
in fact was not in the house or was not
burned this would constitute a fraud
on the Company, and the plaintiff cannot
recover anything on his policy. If the
plaintiff knowingly put a false and eX-
| cessive valuation on any single article
or put such false and excessive valuation
on the whole as displays a reckless and
dishonest disregard of the truth in re-
gard to the extent of the loss. such
knowing GENERALIZATION is itself fraudu-
| lent and the plaintiff cannot recover at
all.
| The whole amount of the goods pur-
| chased of the Anherton Co the year
before, to furnish the entire house was
1925 90, ait the prices then charged for
goods sold on the installment plan, the
plaintiff paying 5000 ait the time of the
purchase These were put into the
| schedule at $4S4.00 an increase of $159OO.
| The plaintiffs lease of these goods spec
| flying the value of each item was doubt
less in his possession after the fire. The
| evidence to the contrary is improbable
and unreliable The order in which he
| stated the items in his schedule of loss
| corresponds to that in the lease too
| closely to be the result of chance. He
must have had access either to the origi-
nal lease or to the town record in which
the lease was recorded. The price of the
velvet carpet was raised from $3.50 to
$1,000 The plaintiff deemed it specially
necessary to explain that this particular
| velvet carpet, precisely IS yards. was
gift from his father and that he had
lturned the Anterior carpet over to his
| father in exchange. But it would seem
from the evidence that he must have had
notice of the gift from his father before
the receipt of the Atherton goods and
| that he had abundant opportunity to
| count ermand the Atherton order.
But the plaintiff proffers the further
excuse for his over-valuatons that the
prices had been practically fixed by Mr..
Forbush, the special agent of the Com
pany. The facts show, however. that
this excuse is equally devoid of merit.
| 1t appears from the plaintiffs own tes-
timony that the proof of loss was ex-
planned to him by the defendants special
| agent; that he was informed that if he
was doubtful about the value of any
thing he should state it as nearly as he
| could; and that he understood when he
made oath to it that he was swearing
that he had all Of those articles in the
house and that they were of the value
which he gave them.
Thus 1T clearly appears that the plain
tiff did not prepare this schedule and
give this testimony under the embarrass-
ment which the ordinary householder
would experience in attempting to recall
specifically a multitude of articles pur-
chased separately many years before or
to give his judgment or opinion in re-
gard to the exact value of those not
purchased by him. The exact prices
were here readily accessible. if not ac-
tually before his eyes; and the conclu-
sion is irresistible that he wilfully re-
fused to avail himself of the information
and knowingly made false statements
in regard to the values. 1t is true that
THE plaintiff and his wife gave positive
| evidence in support of their claim but
| lit is in itself so unrea sonable and in
| credible and overborne by established
facts and circumstances that the court
would not be justified in accepting it as
the basis of a decision. Mere words are
not necessarily proof. and courts are not
compelled to allow justice to be pervert-
| ed because incredible evidence is not
| contradicted by direct and positive tes-
timony. These cases call for the SUPER
visOry power of the court.
| Verdict set aside
| New trial granted.
hoImes vs. Sea Coast PACKING Com.