IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A ^ .\ ^ 1.0 I.I iiitlA |25 US ^ 1^ ■^ MM |22 ""'IS at mss 1 1.25 1 1.4 ||.6 M 6" ► Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STMiET WIBSTIR.N.Y. 14510 (716) 572 4303 ilk ^ - S ^ F !2i •=> pa o > r APPENDIX, ANDEBSON et aL, APPILLAITTB, (W. QUEBEC FIRE ASSURANCE COMPAinf, BSiP0iil>JtlfT8. Evidence of the Plaintiffs in the Court below. '^"^^■^^ta^^^^^^^^i^ ThaS°biL"trp^rc«"^r":t;^Kt^^^ !-;Si^ '^tS'^ "dth.^^^. «f the several powona who eiimod tho^H J^l T "^'""•»*f^ «^th **» l»Md w^tiur Thwe frequently »oen the «Kion.%^ and .Ctef ' ^"'"'^ '^'^."*'«'» ^^^* 2 that ttie signataL.. a Gowe... Kdenlj^'ifoS DS^Jor!!.;???^^^*'^!.".^ ^ '^•^ are the sijcimtures of the w,!.! parties and i^th«^^Ti^. ^^^ ' '^*^^- '^^P'wJ, Seoratny, papei^markei Plaintift'8 Exhibit B.wSu arZiJ™ *°^ '**'2*'"«-.. 5«'"« «»»»»»& month., the .aid receipt i. signed l^y Han mond (Sn P^^^^^ PoHcy for twelve ««diuyMlf88 8ecreta«^aiMltlje8anVarotZ.,«nr^r • *^'«'"*">t. George Hall, Director, PUlutLBi had the prmW iu u^Zl^u i» t£ «'§ wturts of the aaid parties. The thou«adelghtl^ui,CWfiL^rth^lii^Ar"''*' "»«»««» Jrom the fifth of Jnly om fifty rix uu/ertbeSSrSy wh oh f^^^^^^ hmtrS Ti thirteenth of Slandi, one tboiwndeUKnXd^n Si ^*" «ecBted ^e poliov qf the gn«»ted it was with the u^^taSXa^nZ^'^l'"^ ^*° *^ tartpoficy wm «amti&. Whilst the flnt work shop and a filing audmSnJloftBS-^-*^^^^^ *^ '***"**^ w a Joiner's Weston Aunt, the p^mlse. wZ Siented w^a^nt .S^* ^^^^^ *" *^» «»«*^ *» • of J'^}r„t"^;i&S» -"^ forstoreage whi:?;^^^q^nKtJ^^^ thouwnd eight handed and ti^ seve^thntore h^nJll^"*'**'' "f ^^^ fi"tof Miroh one and destroyed. Thesaid wha^wMat 5.fl!«^» **'"^r**?. ^L"" *°**»!y WMOmed ky fir« premise, in ^aesUon ™ oSiTfor^2l«^^ I«? "ww th.([ S! reduction .„ the premium of iaLrance. -hTr:aZZtLZ^:'Zli^':^^n^^^<^ • At that time the dis«K)untallo™tostodS«TJ^"^^^ biindnHf and fifty five, per centjM^ the premiums ZTaS redSldt oX 'l^^tS^u^'V^T ^""^^ poy a higher premioro than befi»re. """"*" "» *«•«' »'»» stookholflara aboald not hftv« to In th?yt^lMLutn*?,7grt^^^^^^^^ -? ^fore, for stockholders- twenty to five per cent. At the MnT fwl Hf. ' • <*«•««,"'" wa« further reduced from ffoncilly. TirePWutifiiai Z^khodeA^ron'^Th"*^ *»•- "^«™d discount offiv.. percent: Tim l.idmt ntt^oTdiscom^h.^^^^ '" *'"'"*'**» *«" »"«w'«i a ray kuowlcdg. . thirty three and m e , r Uhfco m ^ ''^ '*^" '^"^ >«♦« previous, to i. i\ Atthotlmeofthoftreh came to my knoledge that tho store wa>, occupied by Mr. Lemelin, ship bnilder. Gro88 examined. I have been in the employ ot the Defendants since the year ««« '|;«"«"1"; °l8»;t hn^^^^ and fifty and eince that timel have been acquainted with Mr. Weston Hunt one of the Plaintife I am aware that since the last mentioned year the said y^**;"" """j,^**" X° "f a director of tho said Fire Inouranco Company. Dunng f «^f "»«JT" /? *" ^J^iTrK the said Company, it wa« Mr. Weston Hunt who msured the property '« ^f "°" '° J'V^ cause. During t'he continuance of t'e lirst pohcy which 1 have <^V?^f\'°}Jft. ^Xoiner's question was insured under the same risk, that is as a mouldmg and ngging loft and joiner « work shop. Had we been made aware at the time of granting the last policy "'»" »"y ^^i^^'"" ?| a ha«»rdous discription was going on in the oremises in question the rate of premium would have remained at thirty five shillings as on the last renewal. The Defendants in this cau.o were not made aware by the Pl»;n^ij«' O'- ^"7 Ki^ZZ their behalf at any time subsequent to the policy mentioned in «|"J>°«^'f *'^" '" jj" *"''"'' that any hasardous occupation or trade was being carried on in the store in question. Had tho riaintifft made the DefendanU aware of any. such feet {Jl^^^f f^"^;^"^'^^^^";^ have either cancelled tho policy or charged the extra premium. JJ" f ""t'^. °'^ A o^ the known to the Defendante at any time during the «-'''«)«"<'« «**»*°^'fy' 2 ?'* ^ "' "'" renewal there of the existence of a stove or tlio use of fare in tho store in question. Had the Plaintiffs. made know the fiict that fire was n«cd the store in question without the existence of any chimney tho Defendants would have cancelled the pohcy. The Defendants in this cause take no risk what ever on buildings V^. l^harfllTouestion with oat there having a eood and substantial stone or brick chimney. The whart in question 1^ thU cauw^ I w!ys!.een considered as the same risk as the store and tho pr^'T"™ of \nsumnTe ?^e^on has^always been tho same a. that of the «tore with the exception of one vear The wharf had to tiie storo the same iclaticn as u toundat on has to a house, lii tact thestoiiwaTbuiltuponthewharf: had the Defendants cancelled the policy by raison of any" ncTeil^^of hl«rr7or risk on tho store they would likewise have cancelled the pohcy on the wharf. BeExamiaed. . „ of the store in that policy is the same as in tho policy A filed in this cause wth the exception of one won! « fortv^instcad of " fifty. ' ' The amount of property insured in the policy of a year. JOSEPH POIRE-^e connais Jean Lemelin, il b&tissait dans le mois de Mara de rannfeedemifere un Imtiment sur les premisses des Demandeurs. J'6tai8 dans I'emploi de Mr. Lemelin comme joumalier. , Lorsque le feu a tclat^ j'6taiB la un des premiers, mais je ne sais pas comment le tea a ongin6. Lo^nne ie suis arriv6 sur les lieux le feu avait fait du progrfes. Lorsqoo je suis arriv6 le feu^Xe J3 t^^ le hangard, il ^tait alors d peu prfes vers ouze heur«s. Transquestionn^ : 11 V avalt des menuisieiu qui tmvaillaient dans le hangard en qie-rtion, et If g'*««»" V fetaientW je croU. Je crois\u'il n'y avait point de chem,n6e dans ce hangard. Tw A w T FMFLTN—Le haneard a M totaloraent dfetruit ct ce hangard valait environ ci„5'?ent^inqul™ uiJ: et'Konimages causes au quai valaient cent A cent cmquante louis. Transquostionnfe : . Lors du feu ily avait un vaissoao en construction sur le terrain «" a« ouvort. ' "^^ ■•?»>«• pw one j*~ — — dent I II y av«it eu tr^ pea donvraire f»|t n.r l«. ^ m *^*""- TniD»qucMtioiin6 : AuMitfit qn'oD vaiiweau oommence k Ah« uan i le pgl^n du ^Ot6 de iSl^'""- " "> »^"' P«i»t <»« "J'emii WtaJJa'pSSTi J^iS nie.'^fcthr a^^^^^ tta'Utir/f" *»^-* JPO" !•«>««« de oe. d^" long. Oe boi. «t.it aec et en U orf^''"**" P"^ «»• »»•«» «* d'env^on ^Sto p1S,^S JOSEPH ARCHER-(8wom~not e«min«d..) Oefendaut. .d«it the «noant of d^nage aa alleged in U.e Decta«tion PROVINCE OF CANADA, U„ ^^ DuTBiCT o* QcKiiia / 1« THE 8UPERI0B COUBT. he4Srti?;.';?^^^^^ Superior Court for Lower Oan«U. exoeptiona and objecjone m J. or LCf* ^'^t "^T« -^ontioned before thZZ, ^:^'^?^X QaebMs, 2e.h April, 1868. W. C. MEREDITH, J- 0. 0.