The evening Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1918-1920, 1920-01-13
Big Insurance
Case On Trial
CONTINUED from page y

Continued from page y
ddties and the meaning OF THEN oath
rs juymen.
1t was announced that the case to
be tried was the consolidated case of
the Williams Manufacturing Co. of
Northampton, Mass, against, six in
surance companies that held policies
on the plaintiffs property at East
Haven that was burned on Jan. 81,
| 1909. These compinanies arc the
Boston Insurance Company, the
| Connecticut Union Insurance Co., the
! Royal Insurance Company, the ORR
ent Insurance Company, the Hart
ford Fire Insurance Company and
the Pennsylvania Fire Insurance
Company.
1t took nearly an hour TO get a
jury. Fred Bulpee OF Burke was ex-
cused because he was witness when
one of the cases against one OF the
Insurance companies holding policy
on the property was tried before, C.
S, McLam Of Ryegate was excu;ed
because he said Re was a conscienti-
Gus objectoi. Seven others were
excused before the panel was drawn
The Northampton corporation is
representa- by John w. Redmond
OF Newport and David L. Porter of
the firm OF Porter, Writers & Long
moore. The insurance companies
are represented by Dunnett, Shields
& Conant and it is expected the case
will continue through the week and
be sharply contested. The Court ex-
cused the other members of the jury
until Monday afternoon, unless they
should be needed earlier.
Lawyer Redmond stated the case
for the plaintiff just before recess
Tuesday morning. He described how
the plaintiff corporation needing
moore veneer for their Northampton
factory came to East Haven in the
spring Of 1906 and purchased from
the Silsby estate some 1000 acres of
timber on which was an old sawmill.
Here he was interrupted by the OPP
posing counsel and exceptions taken
to the use Of the word old, and ex-
ccptions were allowed by the Court
to his reference to the sawmill and
the word old was ordered stricken
from the records. In March, 1906,
they built firstclass veneer mill,
100 by 80 feet, dryer, 140 by 20
feet and enlarged the boiler house
that had been used b. the sawmill.
After describing how the property
came TO be insured by the Crawford
Ranney agency of st. Johnsbury, Mr..
Redmond told the jury the great
question at issue was what property
was insured. The defense claim it
was the sawmill that was insured,
while the plaintiff claims it was the
veneer mill 1t was this new prop
ersy that Mr.. Milholland, the builder
of the mill and afterwards its man
agel, told Mr.. Ranney to insure and
when in Mr.. Ranney's Office drew a
plan. The new boiler house was con-
nected with the veneer mill and the
latter was covered, with paroid roof
ing, while the sawmill had flintoX
roofing. When the first policies in
the seven insurance companies in
terested in this suit were written by
some mistake this roofing was called
metal roofing, but q few days after
wards the wording was changed to
paroid. Policies of $1,000 were plac-
ed in seven insurance companies
through the Ranney agency. The
wording of each policy was alike. In
asmuch as the Williams Manufacture
ing Company had borrowed some
$4,000 from the Citizens Bank at
St. Johnsbuly the bank held the pol
icies and in case of fire they were
to receive the amount due as their in
terest nigh appear. Every year since
March %, 1906, these policies were
at the Ranney agency. On
Jan. 81, 1903, the veneer and dryer
were set on fire, and later the man
that committed the crime was sent to
state prison. In trying to collect in
sulance the companies said they
would be very glad to pay if they
were liable for any loss, but that the |
81 900 insurance they carried was
not on the property that was burned,
but on the sawmill. These policies
were sent by the Citizens bank to
after the fire and have
since been lost.
Mr.. Redmond explained how the
case that had been previously tried
vas against the Insurance Company
Of North America and this was now
before the Vermont Supreme court.
He. said to save time and expense
Judge Fish had granted a motion to
consolidate the cases against the 9TH
II companies into one suit, and that
he great question involved as to
What property was covered by the
policies was the same in the CONSOLE
ated case as the policies all had the
anne description of the plaintiffs