Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/770

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page needs to be proofread.


762 PEDEEAL REPORTER. �sehedule was furnished by Clément, in accordance with the conditions of the policy, in which thé goods lest were valued at $6,600. He also submitted to an examination on oath by an agent of the défendants, as required by the contract. There was évidence tending to show that some of his state- ments in the sehedule and examination — but more especially in the former — were false, though it was not admitted or directly proved that they were wilfully so. The insured became bankrupt after this, and the action was prosecuted by his assignées, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiiïs. One point of law reserved at the trial has been argued with BO much zeal and ability, and is thought by the défendants to be of 60 great importance, that I hâve examined it with care, and shall give my views upon it at more length than its intrinsic difficulty may seem to require. �There is a preliminary matter, which I will first dispose of. The proofs of loss, including the sehedule above men- tioned, were put into the case by the plaintiffs with the express avowal that they were offered and used merely to prove that the proofs had been duly made. The witnesse» who made the sehedule had it before them when they tes- tified, and many questions were asked them by both sides as to how it was made up, etc. The paper itself was not re- ferred to by counsel on either side, nor by the court, as évidence of value. The défendants asked me, in writing, to instruct the jury that the paper was not évidence of value. I neg- lected, by inadvertence, to give this ruling, ,and this is the first ground upon which a new trial is asked for. Inasmuch as not a word had been said throughout the trial which would lead the jury to suppose that the proofs of loss were évidence of value, but the value was most elaborately argued on both sides on wholly différent grounds, and as the proposed in- struction was not read in the présence of the jury, so that my silence could not bave misled them, I think there was no error in this omission. The suprême court of Maine bave decided that, where such a paper is put in without objection, it is évidence for ail purposes; but I need not consider that point. Moore v. Providence Ins. Co. 29 Maine, 97. ��� �