Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-10-21
SUPREME COURT.
Case Of Geo. B. Warner VS..
Fire insurance. Companies,
.Suli Brought for S175O for a
Fire Loss on Oct, 6, 1912.
Insurance Company Claims Loss an
Exaggsraiion-.T testimony All DAY.

The case of George B. Warner of
Halloween nominal plaintiff VS.. the
Narrangansett Fire ms co. of Cor
| ham and the Dirigo Fire ms. Co, also
of Gorham mutual companies in
which the plaintiff brought suit for
$3.50 for fire loss. Oct 6, 1912, at Leeds
Junction, when the stock and fixtures
of dwelling house, a general store
and postotiice, together with contents
of other outbuildings were DESTROYED
by fire was commenced at the opening
of the supreme court, Monday morn
ing. Ralph Crockett of Lewiston APP
peared for the plaintiff, White, Newell
& Shelton of Lewiston conducted the
case for the defendants. Seven hun
bred and fifty dollars of the loss was
sought from the Narrangansett Co,
While the remaining $1,000 was against
the Dirigo Co.
The insurance companies refused to
pay the amount of the loss on the
grounds that II was an exaggeration,
and also that as the plaintiff, Warner
had inferred thai the cause of the fire
was from spark of passing loco
motive, the railroad was where the
amount of damage should come from.
Attorney Crockett briefly outlined
his case to the jury and called as the
first witness, George B. Warner. the
plaintiff in the case. His testimony
at the forenoon session was brief be-
ing composed considerably regarding
statements made in application for
the insurance policies. Witness stated
that he did not remember having
stated that there was no mortgage on
the property. Witness was question
ed at length regarding communiea-
tions with Agent Millett of the insur-
anee companies and Millett's alleged
failure to take steps to adjust the
loss. Attorney Crockett read several
letters written by himself to Agent
Millett asking for copy of policy that
was burned in the fire. Apparently
from the nature of the letters Attor-
ney Crockett had got no satisfaction.
1t appeared that the insurance com
panies suggested on account of the
inference of the plaintiff that he
should collect the amount of the loss
from the Maine Central Railroad
At this point court took an adjourn
ment, until go p. NJ.
At the opening of the afternoon SEES
sion Attorney Newell for the defend
ants conducted the cross exahina ton
of Plaintiff Warner, who was recalled
to the stand. The list of articles con-
tanned in the fire proof loss was read
by Attorney Newell and witness was
questioned at length regarding the
amount fixed on the different articles
hnitc.hn1J oil
made up the stock in the store The
articles under the Narragansett policy
We're thoroughly gone into by Attor-
ney Newell in his rigid cross examine
ton.
IN redirect examination by Attor-
ney Crockett, witness stated that in
making out the list of articles de-
stroyed he did not wilfully mean to
over estimate the value of articles or
defraud either of the two insurance
companies in any way,
Mrs. George Warner, wife of plain
tiff. was the next witness. She ac-
knowledsed that she. was not familiar
with stock of goods in the store, but
that it was a comparatively large one
for country store. Witness also
stated that she assisted her husband
in making out the list of destroyed ar
ticles. Witness did not wilfuly mis-
state value of articles in making out
list
Mrs. Warner testified that she and
her daughter Mona engaged in adj
justing the fire loss OF the household
articles. while her husband and agent
began to take at count of stock in the