Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-10-20
ANDROSCOCCIN
And PENOBSCOT
LAW COURT DECISIONS

The following decisions have been re-
ceived from the law court by Clerk of
Courts Charles w. Jones:
ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY-L. C. An
drews VS.. The Drigo Mutual Fire Insur-
ance Company. Rescript, Hanson, j.
This is an action on a fire insurance
policy, dated February IL, 1911. The fire
occurred May 2, 1913, and proof of loss
was filed Aug. 5, 1913. The jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of
$123424. The case is before the court
on general motion for new trial. The
material facts in the case are substan-
TALLY these:
The fire was caused by smoking a large
ham and a shoulder in a shed about 20
feet square. The hams were suspended
by tarred string from an iron rod run
ming across the bottom of a wooden bar
rel, which was inverted over similar
barrel, the latter standing on the wooden
floor A kettle containing the fire and
combust'ble material stood on bricks in
the bottom of the lower barrel
The premises were owned by the plain
| .jff, who had occupied them for IS years.
and continued to live in the house until
driven out by the fire. For about two
years his daughter and her husband, a
Mr.. Jackson, had lived there, without
any lease or special arrangement, but
doing the work about the place and
owning some OF the personal property.
| The plaintiff retained full control of the
premises, but on account of his advanced
| AGED and feeble condition, was obliged to
secure the assistance of Mr.. Jackson and
| his wife in the management of his farm
| and care of himself in his sickness. The
| lam and shoulder were the property of
Mr. Jackson, and he was smoking them
| fer use in the plaintiffs home. The plain
| tiff was confined to his bed at the time of
| the fire, and was carried from his house
| by neighbors. He lost his deed and other
| papers, and much of his personal prop
/ erty, in the fire.
| Held -'~~'--.
| /. That the situation and circumstances
affecting the risk were not so altered as
to cause an increase of the risk by or
with defendants knowledge, advice.
agency, or consent. Nor does the evil
dence justify an inference that what
ever was done was the act of the plain
tiff performed through Mr.. Jackson and
his wife, as agents. thus violating a con-
dition of the policy.
| 2 1t is firmly settled in this State that
what constitutes reasonable time, on I'M
disputed facts, is not for the jury, but Is
a question of law.
8. Other questions were involved, and
| the case was necessarily submitted to
the jury. 1t is manifest that there WIS
evidence from which the jury could pop
erly find that there was a waiverSof the
right of the defendant to require a proof
OF loss. or that such proof 81 loss was
furnished within a reasons3le time. The
brief statement does MOI set up the alb
sence of a proof ofS1oss. or negative a
waiver. q
Motion overruled. Received October
18th, 1914.
PENoBSCOT CoUNTY-Edward w.
Duplissey VS.. Maine Central Railroad
Company. Rescript. Cornish, J.
In an action on the case to recover
damages for the loss of buildings and
contents alleged to have been destroyed
by fire communicated by locomotive of
| the defendant.
Held.
l. That in this class of cases liability
is a question of reasonable inference
from all the facts and circumstances, and
the evidence should be of such a charac-
ter that a reasoning mind shall see the
connection between cause and effect.
2 That the proximity of the premises,
the direction of the wind, the dryness of
the night. the th.1e of the passage of the
train. the discoyAyyf the fire within a
short time the.eahsr, the location of the
IRE when FIST discovered and the absence
of all otner reasonably probable sources
JUSTIFIED the try in drawing the infer
le'.ce that the locomotive or the defend
ant caused this fire.
| 3. That on the uncontradicted evidence
offered by the plaintiff on the question
of values, the damages are not so mani
| testify excessive as to warrant the inter-
ference of the Court.
| 4. That the testimony of a neighbor as
to finding large quantity of cinders on
her piazza the next morning after the fire
was properly admitted, as the capacity of
the locomotive to throw sparks was in
| issue, The objections raised by the de-
PENDANT go to the weight of the evidence,
rather than to it's admissibility.
| ., That the instruction requested by
the defendant was properly refused be-
cause it asked the Court to prescribe in
detail the character of the evidence re-
quired in this class of cases. and to pass
| upon matters clearly within the province
of the jury. The charge fully protected
the rights of the defendant in all re-
| spects.
Motion and exceptions overruled Re-