The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1910-06-23
BANK CASE ARGUED.
Important Suit Against Insurance
Company in Caledonia County


Court. -.
st. Johnsbury, June 19.-The de-
fence in the case OF the Citizens sa-
wings Bank VS.. the FGtchburg Mutual
Fire Insurance Company took little
more than half a day Saturday to put
in their evidence in Caledonia County
Court. /,
Their first witness called was Fred
erick J. Bliss of Hartford, Conn. AS
inspector of buildings, etc, he testi- |
fed that his estimate Of the cost OF
the construction of a building sucn
as the Citizens Bank as Of last Octo-
Der would be $4,000.
MIR Hughes, an architect from Bos-
ton testified to substantially the same
thing. Also Charles w. Spear of Bur-
! lington, contractor and builder made
the same estimate. Following these
witnesses the defence examined AL
exander Drew, contractor and build
or of St Johnsbury, Robert B. Shields
cabinet maker of the firm of Jones
& Shields, who had something to do
with the repairs on the fixtures used
in the banking rooms; also A. Barber
Moves, an insurance agent of this
place.
In their rebuttal the plaintiff call
ed Jack Bertrand, builder and owner
of the new Bertrand block on Rail-
road street He was asked as to the
costs of materials, etc This concluded
the evidence. Mr.. Howe moved to
have the defendants evidence re-
gardng the cash value of the building
stricken out on the ground that the
counsel for the defendant had not fol-
lowed the method which he promised
that he would in offering it. The mo-
ton was overruled, the court saying
that he would attend to that in his
charge to the jury. Mr.. Dunnett then
asked to have the jury instructed to
bring in a special verdict on account
of the complications in figures etc.
He said that the defendant waived its
right to go to the jury on every
question except the question of dam
ages which he maintained should be
computed on the value of the prop
erty before and after the fire. The
motion was overruled and the eXcep-
ton noted for the defendant.
Mr.. Fairbanks opened the argu-
ments for the plaintiff He took UP
} most of his time in explaining the
! so-called 80 per cent clause and the
, theory of co-insurance.
He was succeeded by Alexander
Dunnett on behalf of the defendant
Mr. Dunnett showed that the 80 pei
cent clause made insurance cheaper
to buy and that that was me reason
: their building. He maintained thai
l the bank was seeking the full indem'
nifty of fat-rate insurance policy
but were only carrying insurance
as matter of fact dnder the so pei
cent clause. Mr. Dunnett further
maintained that in arriving at the
fair cash value of a building upoI
1 which the 80 per cent clause natural
ly has to operate one cannot consid
er what a building can be bought TO.
sold for on the spur of the momen
= under the hammer of the auctioneer
nor even in one years time; but tina
5 the only fair criterion was to ascer
tain the cost of construction of tn,
same kind of building at the TIM
when such valuation is in question
At the close of Mr.. Dunnett's ar
: gument the Court took a recess unit
c Monday afternoon at 2 o'clock. At tina
S tine Leighton p. Slack VIII continu
O the arguments for the defendant an'
# B. Howe will close for the plaintiff
O The case will probably be submitte,
n to the jury sometime Monday after
e noon. II has been a very interesting
q case and its outcome will be awaite,
= with considerable eagerness by tn
e bank and the remaining ten compan
= les having insurance in the sam
It building