DONALD JAWAHIR v N.E.M. (WEST INDIES) INSURANCE LIMITED

t ')' '- *02.0 SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIl) A.D. 1996 Suit No. 286 of 1993 Between '- DONALD JAWAHIR ll.?intiff and N.E.M. (WEST INDIES) INSURANCE LIMITED Defendant Mr . C. Rambally and Mr. M. ?rancois for :?laint:i:: Mrs. S. Lewis and Miss C. ~ewis for ~efendant: 1996: May 14 ; June 7. JUDGMENT Matthew J. On April 30, 1993 the ?laint:iff filed a writ: o f summons indorsed with Stat:ement of Cl aim aski ~g f or payment: from :je :e fendanc ehe sum of $345 ,0 00. 0 0, int:eresc and cose s. =n nis Statement of C lal ~ =ne ~_a~:;.= ~:: a~ _ egec >!a ~,l 1991 he insured his building s ic~ate d a t _a :? a ns e e . ~as:r ~ es wi ch the ~efendant and during c~e contracc~ al peri od , ?e;::~uar"l 5 I 19 92 t-he building was~"mDler-:::.i'l "es-'--" ''''' - v::' - " "-r- "he \ -- I '- '-U... '- '- __ ... '-"- l... _ ..., , '. __ ....... " ...", _ _ __ ~ ...... .....;4. '- _ ... .. Defendant has refused co pay ~im c ~ e insured sum ~ ~ 534 5 .000 . 00 . The Defendant entered appearance f i led a defence and counterclaim on September :4 . :9 93 ~~e e ssence -~ ehe -' aer ence lS t at no po~_cy eXlStec oetween ::;.e ana : ne Defendant because the :?lainc i f f ~ ncr~c h f~l lv answered ~~e sci on No . t .~ 4 in the insurance proposal and Defendant icy of insurance in pursuance of che trut ness of t answers the proposal. Defendant did not fact have a counterolalm -or it scribed as a counterclaim olaimed ~ochl~g aga_nsc che ? aint:'ff. However there lS _ncl an' ::T ::::-r "'L _ adi~g In paragraph 13 whicn is ..... ::1 :act. supporc::...ve '~r :e:-:Ce re he Defendant s~ated that ::...t was provided in _~e deo"a::::-atl n aCt " " t the pronosc.l form that cne sa::...d p sa~ s::ct.:~ : :~ ,.~ .. e is the policy and that c sald clarat::...on" S :-le be incorporated in the said polioy. In fact the declarat does not say a~~ _~ac :nere stipulates the agreement of c Plalntiff hac che al orm the basis of che ooncracc becween the ?la::...nt::... and t Defendant. request for hearing was filed on r " _he cri Plainc::...ff gave ev::...de~ce ~ - -~esses. Hazel Joseph, the Assistanc r of Ylinvl 3.~a .ascanet for the Defendant, gave evidence on benal -he fenoe and led three witnesses. were a ;:j.Lasse '-"-;::, _ .. ar les and Claudius Francis. Donald Jawahir stated t 'Nhen he 'went -.~ _'-' - ..... e -ne _nsurance icy, he spoke and al t 'wi ch ?ecer 3ergasse I jec:e s He taced chat Bergasse took the a~ =orm ana ~ ,I " .. "'...:... then asked him to sign -c. At firsc ne Bald 3ergasse did noc explain anything in c sal - '" _'-' ......... ~ """'it' ........ -- '--"- ~ ... '-" '- ::::-e che scated oa::::-c'_~lar chac proposal form to him _::...ne Bergasse did not read ouc :0 nlm -ne orm. shall set out that quesclon oe_ow, f \..r He stated that in or about 1988 he owned a pick-up T14 27 and a Bedford Tipper, H3716. He said these vehicle s were ~nsured with Alliances and St. Lucia Insurances did not speak :0 ~ ~ m ~n May 1988 abouc the policies in respec: of =~e two v eh~c: ~s. :-:e said hEl .. could not remember receiving correspondence ::::'-077: :::e company concerning those two vehicles. He said in 1985 he had a building ac ?ores:iere ~::sured ~ich St. Lucia Insurances and thac while the policy was e f:ect the building was affected by fire p ~r:iall y. ~e said :~e company t ook about 2 - 3 years to pay Dlm and oecause '-' .L =::ac. :::e~ay ~e did noc ask St. Lucia Insurances co insure anychi::g :or ~ ~ m . ~ e said after the time period of the vehicle insurances :lao =::-:..:n ---'1r '"--" \"...4,. '- :-:e simply went elsewhere. He said he could noc remember recelv~ :: g money from St . Lucia Insurances in May ~988. When he was cross-examined he rei:erac.ed =ha: ~as ~er~asse who compler-prJ t-h.::: pro-posal ":: 01 :·"i;:, . ~'1h en.:le ',:::"Z c::a.:. _e::.:e c:. respect of certain answers, for example , the answe r t o qu est:.~o::. 3 and how could Bergasse arrive ac such answers he said: " ::: say ':.CW 'iery few of these questions Mr , Bergasse asked me. ' ! He stated that he did not remember recelvlng any :e::er from St. Lucia Insurances cancelling the policie s o f the two '!ehicles or receiving in any leccer a cheque f or Sl03 . ~O a s representing =he balance of premiums recurned. He said he is not telling lies and ~s speaKing the :ru t ~ a nd he did not deliberately give the wrong answer to ques:~on ~o . ~ . :-:e said he did not know at the =~me t .:;.ac St . _uc::.a :::nSL!ranCf;'::' ::",Q:::aDcelled the policies on his vehicles. After the fire which descroyed the ~ns ure d property ?ebruary 1992, Minvielle and Chastane: :JeCCime :::e Sepcember 1992. Hazel 30seDh scacec:. :::a: s~ e oecame awar~ o f :ne ~ c aim after Minville and Chastanet took over t files in respect of that claim was handed over to not pay the Plaintiff any money. She s she appointed s usters, Francis Rosemin and and recommendations on the clalm. sa she ~e£~~ded ~::e ?lalnt:iff s premium. a Blasse has been an ~nsuraTIce clerk L~ .~. 3eygasse :Qr ~ fourteen years. s the ? al~t was f liar with the proposal torm whi the ?laint~:_ ad endered ~n evidence. She said her handwriting ~s on .. e ~ :1e said she asked the aintiff quest~ons she -~ .3. c. S ',N e as the ? aintiff indicated. She sald:)n t .. e oaSlS ':::3.r1s'."lie s ''""' he form she entered ~nto the contract with -he _a'--'''::'::: she was cross-examined she sald ~r. 3ergasse """'!.. ~-.: A_~ .~ -he form and he did not r torm after was ~ ~ -=:":1 ,-rU:: sai~ a would not complete ~crm lt~O~t ~3 ent -~Q stions. Charles has been ~n the empl f St. ~Cla _nsurances for thirteen years, last ten of which oe :':-' ... g rect:or ~ He stated that his company an :.nsurance on -he la ~""f'IS -~~ Forestiere property and in the course f -he ~ere was a .,., ~.':-' ::lr:-';es ana 'v\las f re at the place and tCJ.e rt ',Ner:t completely burnt. ~'-' c.:vldence -.~ He said arson was suspected out there was no ~onc_ - 3.r:ce...:.. :~e h I , . , . L e calm so nls ::::ompany OOK a :::.ec: s' ~ " 1" . , . . . . eXlstlng po lCles wnlcn .- nac on tne _alnt_==_ cles , He tendered a letter dated 25th May, s to the aintiff. "Mr. Mcdonald Jawahir, Forrestiere, ST. LUCIA." I t is not disputed that the letter cle y purports ~o cancel insurances on vehicle T1427 and H3716. The ~etter also stated t a cheque of $103.00 was enclosed as represent_ng _ne re for the unexpired terms f ~ne ~nsurance. es stated that the _etter was cost tne a~n~ __ f and it was not returned and t the cheque ~n t::'e _e;: te2:' .. e'.re_ "arne back t him. When he was cross-examined he said that he assumed awan2:r received s letter for it was not returned he naa "'"'- 1\ _ ... \....I :::.::e :!:~ :"eans f ~rp ning whether the Plaintiff receiv~~ the _etter, He said he could not say whether the letter was reg~stered or not. He stated further: "I have had letters my mail COX C:1 ,:::'lQ .8e 8ng to me. I agree mistakes are made in the Post: £:""~""" L..i.......:...\ .. ""'-' • e have told me they posted things to me that = never rece2:ved. There is the possibili that Plaint2:ff never rece~ved _De etter or cheque. " audius Francis is employed .... rr :~~e :ir:n ?~ar::: __ s ?8serrllTI Limited, .-nsuyance ::"oss aci-'~st:ers 3..::' .. '::1 ~~ ::::;,~-,-==--l:::'S. ~e -,-m2:tea carr'i.eci out invest t 2:ons '=or 3e::::-g2.S 5.,"_ surrounding the circumstances of the , ~ , :::.e - .:re 'N'n:.c:: '""I---c:: .... -""C,,-,,-_ insured property and he stated that ::'lS ~nvestlgac_ons reveal a misrepresentation by the ?laintiff wlch respect t::'e answer glven to question 4 of the proposa~. ~e was not cross-examlnea. "" I think it is time to set out the questions and answers re to matter. "3 Have you or anyone 'Nith a :::inaneial Yes No interest s prope ever suffered a loss, her nsured cr not, from any peril ~o be 'nsured against at t s or any ctter oeat If "yes II ease stOle (a) Date of css b) Cause of loss c) Amount

4.Have you or anyone with a :::inancial Ye No. interest in prcperty co be insured ever had a propos cr icy - ~efused Declined, Cancell cr had c~al ~erms imposed? If "yes" Please state the name f tte Company and type ::)f ::..nsurance. In her closing address Mrs. ::"ew::..s tted t~.ac - _"e ~ t f the matter was in clause 4 of ~he proposal :'::ounse..:. tt che question and answer was a macer_al ~act rmlng _he basis f any acceptance of the policy : 'nsurance Learned Counsel re tc Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 25, paragraphs 367 and 369. ... V'""'.-..; .;: :npc.s .~ .::e submitted that :tere was a ""' " ~u. _ ":ac :-:C'C. :J.one est :2.:1 ~ dr:.e .e disclcse truthful tte answer tc so. referred to the :ollowlng cases: RE ARBITRATION between YAGER V GUARDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY 1913 KBD 38; 42. GLICKSMAN V LANCASHIRE INC. 1926 H/L 139; 143. LOCKER AND WOOLF LIMITED V WESTERN AUSTRALIAN COMPANY 1936 KBD 408; 413 -415. Modern Insurance Law by John Birds, Third Edition, page 135. MacGillivray and Parking ton on Insurance Law 7th Edition, paragraph 831. Mr Francois in reply based his submissions on ~wo ses. He submitted that in respect of ~he answer ~o questioD No.4 there was no material non-disclosure of any racts. Secondly, he said even ,~ ~nere was a mater~al ~o~-d_sclosure of facts the Defendant had not discharged ~he ~~ 9roo£ t s case for whomsoever is saying there is a fraudulent srepresentation the burden of proof is on ~~m. He rel_ed on the authority of DERRY V PEEK 1899 14 A.C. 337. T should like to begin by stating some of the general 9r'nc~ples of non-marine insurance, name the requirement ~ _he ~ most faith and the duty ~o make sc_osure~;:: "ate::::-::.. 1 :acts. See Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 25 paragraphs 365 and 366. The basic test of material faots ~ nges JDOn whether the mind of a prudent insurer would be affected, ei~her ng whether to take the risk at - , a.ll. or : .A.-x:.::g _ ::e reml um f knowledge of a particular fac~ had been disc-osed. -:'here the fact must be one affecc .. ng che risk. See 9araa::,'ac._ ;; ~ re are certain facts affecting , -, - "" the mora~ nazara ana one S'L1C!1 set facts which it is often material ~o know is chat n relation to insurances comparable with that s . ::ere :::..ave been prevlous losses or claims or that In relation to any class of _nsurance the renewal of previous policies has been refused or orem~J~S have been clined. In Re .~ Arbitration between YAGER AND GUARDIAN ASSURANCE COMPANY KBD 38 the claimant had failed to sclose Co Assurance that the Liverpool and London and had declined to continue his insurance. When he claimed as a ~esult of a fire the Court held that the fact ehat the L. ~efuse8 ~ to continue the policy was a materi face, e when e s fact became known to the claimant on the 20th September, ~here was no concluded contract, and that it was still ehc d~~ of ~he claimant to disclose such fact to the Guardian, and, hav oml~eed co so the claimant was not entitled ~o ~reat e P0l.lCY as a valid icy. S larly ln GLICKSMAN LANCASHIRE AND GENERAL ASSURANCE a COMPANY, LIMITED 1927 A.C. 139 ~wo partners had Sl ~ , ;,.,.;..1.. and also a declaration at :.he foot ,...) .L ~::e -'''"''"'r'''''m _.'-...-' ..... ,Il themselves that the answers co the questions were ~rue, and that they had withheld no information that ~end ::.ncrease the company's risk, and agreelng chat ~ne Gec.:.ara~or-:s 3nG answers S d be the basis of :::.he cCucrac:: bet',veen_hem 'ind - """ ~"m~ally. fact was that an insurance company had re ed a proposal for a burglary insurance made by che appellant on a former occasion. House of Lords held ::ha t there 'lias SUI: I: _::: len~ for ing ehe finding of - arblcrator chat ehe ~efusal ehe insurance office of the proposal made ehe appel_ar-:c on the former occasion was a material face I and ehae fa:::e :"lad been concealed. More relevant to the facts of ehe present case -;::; __ :J.e case of LOCKER AND WOOLF LIMITED AND WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED 1936 1K.B. 408. _n -hat case ehe :our- -~ ea_ "lel.Q e thg ~~ligation on a person mak_r-:g a pyc~osal fo~ :r-:surar-:c agalnSt fire to disclose all ,naterlal. ;- - ,-..1- """'" _Ci'- __ ;'::; , s .... '" '"", r- ~ ... '-.....I '- 'V'~:2':J. maeters exclusively relating to fire ~lsks, but exeends 3r-:y ~aeeer whi would influence the judgmene or ehe lr-:surance oompany decl ng whether to take or refuse ehe rlSK. ~he ::.r-:-end_nc 3ssured, a proposal for fire insurance resDect answer to the question: "Has this o r any o ther insurance o f yours been declined by any other company?" answered "No." Thereupon a policy was issued. It subsequently appeared that some time before that Proposal the assured had applied to another company for a icy on - -- - - ~ motorcars I but the application was declined o n :he ;rounds o f misrepresentation and non - disclo s ure o f certain fact s. ~eld, chat the nor.-disclosure of this refusal o f :he mot o r- ca r insurance was the non-disclosure of a material fact in the proposal : o r c he fir e insurance which therefore ent:tled che fire insurance company to a v oid the policy. There is no dispute chac : he ?laincif: answered =!uescion No . correctly. In a sense the answer to that quesci on s nou:d nave put the insurer on inquiry and ;~ he had made the necessary 'nqulries from St. Lucia Insurances Limited he may well ha ve :ound, not only the circumstances of the ?orestiere fire , but a lso :he delay in payment of the cl a im and che resu ltam:: ciecisio n oy St. Lucia Insurances Limited to ~anc~l :h ~ ?lainti:f ' s mo t or - c ar insurances. One might well wish to argue that the answer :0 que st:cn 4 of the proposal was not In ract mater::..al . ?aragraph ::alsbury' s states in part: "However, it is sufficient if che facts '",hich are ciisc losed put the insurers on inquiry and cheir lnquiry wou lci in the normal course elic::..: such : urther :accs a s ~ av ;::;e :;"at.:erial." In ANGLO-AFRICAN MERCHANTS, LIMITED AND ANOTHER anci BAYLEY 19 69 2 A. E.R. 421 the plaintif: c omoanles ''''l sned : :::; .:oca .:..:-:. :nsu rance coverage against a 1 ., ::::-isks f e r a quanc.:..t.:y ~F army su r;l~s clo ching about y ears old , ~Nn.::.. c:-, .. - ...... 0'\' , _ _ .. __ >I "-~:: 2!"'.:.ded ::::r- ~esa ...... '2 ;::;uyers abr oad . The plaintiffs ::..nst.:::::-ucted a :irm _F ;::;rOKe::::-s a nd : nf o rmed D. (a director o f the fi ::::-m ) t.:hae :he goods were ;cv ernmen: s u rO lU s and that they were new. communi c aced '",ieh a firm o f brokers who insured the ;cods as new . Dor:icn - F :ne clothing was stolen and when :he -;>J..a::...ne.:..ffs : ne ;::c~.:..cy :hey ---.. ----~------ ~ ---"-".'-~'------'-'---•. -- . ~-.----- , .. ---. . ·4i.. fa iled for non-disclosure of material facts. :n the course of his judgment Magaw J. held that even if it could properly be said that an insurer waived his right to complain of non-disclosure if he had received information which would puc an ordinary , careful , insur1f on enquiry and nevertheless failed : 0 enquire , a ~ o rm al prudenc insurer would not have been puc on enquiry a s : 0 :~e ?r ec ~s e ~ ature o f the goods by reason o f' seeing :hem descriced a s ' ':'.ew :nen ' s c lot hes in bales for export. " The declaration at the end o f the proposal s c~ ;:;u .:.. .ic ed :::'at the proposal shall f orm the basis o f :he contract be: ~e en :':'.e ?lainc ~ff and the Defendant. In Glicksman'S case Viscount Dunedin ~ad chis t o say at page 143. He said: "Then I come to the law of ~he law ~as c f:e~ oeen s ta t ed , but perhaps i t is just a s well to state it again. .:::'" contract o f i nsurance is denominated a contract uberrimae :~ael. It lS po ss ible fo r the persons :0 stipulace :nac answers c ercain questions shall be the b?8 ~ s (I f ::he insur:..:-:cc , and . := : ::'a t is done then there is no question :is to che materialicy _e:: , .::::;ecause t.he persons have contracted chat ::here should be :nacer~a l i: y ~n chose questions." adopt that statement of the =...aw and hold chat ::. ::'e 3.nswer c.o question 4 of the p roposa l cecome s :nate r ial . Se e pa r agrapn 3 91 of Halsbury's and paragraphs 8 15 , 32 4 , and 826 ~ := :~e Sixth Edition of MacGILLIVRAY and PARKINGTON ::::n INSURANCE LAW. T do not believe the Plalnc~:: :::'a c ~as : ne _ate ?e: er 3ergasse who filled in the proposal :c·rm .f=,.-..,..,.... -'-" ...... ::.:..m . :i~d : ydia 31asse :0 ce a witness of truch and :;: beL.eve --:.e :::c- ................ - ~ •• ct l.. 3ne "Ha S : ...... e one wno f illed in the proposal for :he ?lainciff and ac. ~ ~ 3 dic : acion . find that Blasse filled in the form ai:er receiving :ne appropriace r esponses from the Plainci:f. that she asked the Plainti: : :he quescion ~o ~ nd ne answered the negative. Since che proposal :orm was :illed 3.3 dic tated the difficult questions of not consideration. See paragraph 831 et. seq. of Seventh lfcH.tioo of MacGILLIVRAY and PARXINGTON as well as Modern Insurance Law by Jonh Birds, Third Edition, page 135; BAWDlfN and LOBDOlic", ... -~ EDINBURG &, GLASGOW ASSURANCE COMP ANY 1 S 92 2 Q. B . 534; NEWSHOLME BROS. AND ROAD TRANSPORT &, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1929 2K.B. 356. As I said earlier I believe t Plaintiff answered "NOli - question 4 on the proposal form. issue t s case s whe the aintiff in giving answer lied to the insurers as learned Counsel for the Def The ~nsurance uster Mr. audius Francis, had suspicions as to t cause f t fire to insured property and was of the ew t the Pla iff fraudulently misrepresented himself in re to answer to the said quest 4. To det th~s quest it is crucial to find out whether t PIa iff ever ~ece~ved t letter to him by St. ,...i Cl. Tnsurances. s letter ed 25th 988 was not delivered by hand to the Pl iff and he not s document to indicate that rece::.. :::.-nhere is no that the let ter was regist to him. Pi was . . ::..s no e ena:::. ;lS enclosed the letter. cheque. When he was cross- Charles conceded that stakes are made Post fice people have t d hi that they have posted things to never :-eceived further conceded that there is the possibili that the iff never received the letter or cheque. law in this case has been correctly stat bv earned Counsel the Plaintiff but s cas'? · .. ·ill turn on the :acts. '_"heL'C was no doubt in Yager's case. He was told the agent f the re company that he had bad news for him and when - cla what was the bad news the agent told him that t ::..nsurer was not going to continue with the _nsurance. :·"t\~: all the difficult questions o f agency do not ar~se for considerat i on. See paragraph 831 et . seq . of the Seventh Edition of MacGILLIVRAY and PARKINGTON as well as Modern Insurance Law by Jonh Birds, Third Edition, page 135; and BAWDEN and LONDO~ EDINBURG & GLASGOW ASSURANCE COMPANY 1892 2 Q.B. 534; NEWSHOLME BROS. AND ROAD TRANSPORT & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 19 29 2K.B. 356. As I said earlier I bel ieve the Plaintiff answered'~o " ~ = queseion 4 on the pzoposal form . The re a l ~ss u e ~n chis case ~ s ~het h er the Plaintiff in giving that answer ~~ed to c he ~nsure rs a s sugges ted by learned Counse l for the 8efendant. ~he ~ns urance ad:~s t e r . ~ r . Claudius Francis, had suspicions as t o the cause o f tne :~re to the insured property and was of the view thac t he :?lainciff had fraudulently misrepresented himself in relation to t he a nswer he gave to the said question 4 . To determine chis question it is c rucial to find out whether the Plaintiff ever ~eceived che letter pObt~d to him by St. ~UCi2 Insurances. ~h i s lerr~Y ~ ~ced =Sth May , 198 8 was not delivered by hand to the Plaintiff and he di d noc sign any document to indicace that he had recel ved -='':-:ere is no evidence that the l etter was registered ~ .. - : ':-:eque 'Nas enclosed in the lett e r. ~here ~s no evidence :ha~ ~e ~ sed tha t cheque. When he was cros s-exam~ ned Cyrus Charl es ~ o nceded that mistakes are made in the Post Office and people nave : o ~ ~ ':-:lm thae they have posted things co him which he had neve r re c eived and he further conceded thae there is the possibility chac t he :?laintiff never received the letter or cheque . The l aw in this case has been correct lv staced ~v le a rned Counsel for the Plaintiff bue this c a se "N"i ~~ curn en the ':::ac t s . _ ~ :e .. cc was no doubt in Yager's case. He was told by the agenc c f the refusing company that he had bad news for him and when the c ~ai man c asked what was the bad news the agenc told ':-:i m ~h at t he :nsurer was noe going to continue with the ~nsurance. In this case there can only be a presumption the Plaintiff received the letter from St. Lucia Insurances cancell his motor- car insurances. I have regard to Halsbury' s ~aws::::f and, Fourth Edition, Volume 17( paragraphs 35, and '/1 i ~ ""'"' -'- ~ T~ Plaintiff has denied reading the ~etter. ?~alntlff not shown himself to be a very truthful person. 3esldes on a daad man he tried to show that the house at Forestiere was cnlv ially burnt whereas s Charles stated that the prope went in flames and was complete burnt. less _ cannot say on a balance of probabilitj '2S :::hat am convinced ~ .. at :::e ::::-ece the letter. I am therefore unable to conclude wlth any of assurance that when the 2laintiff gave the lve answer to tion 4 in the proposal for insurance that ~ls::::-epresent sstated, suppressed or withheld information. _ am as suspicious as others have been but should not be carri away suspicions and possibly do an ustice to the ?la nt __ f. T would accordingly 9nt'2::::- dgment for the ?laintlff t,e sum f $345,000.00 and his costs to be agreed to t ...................... A. N. J. MATTHEW PUISNE JUDGE . " "$$ •• "

SAINT LUCIA t ‘)’ ‘- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIl) A.D. 1996 Suit No. 286 of 1993 Between DONALD JAWAHIR and N.E.M. (WEST INDIES) INSURANCE LIMITED Mr . C. Rambally and Mr. M. ?rancois for :?laint:i:: Mrs. S. Lewis and Miss C. ~ewis for ~efendant: Matthew J. 1996: May 14 ; June 7. JUDGMENT *02.0 ll.?intiff Defendant On April 30, 1993 the ?laint:iff filed a writ: o f summons indorsed with Stat:ement of Claim aski ~g f or payment: from :je :e fendanc ehe sum of $345 ,0 00. 0 0, int:eresc and cose s. =n nis Statement of C lal ~ =ne ~_a~:;.= ~:: a~ _ egec >!a ~,l 29 1 1991 he insured his building s ic~ate d a t _a 😕 a ns e e . ~as:r ~ es wi ch the ~efendant and during c~e contracc~ al peri od , ?e;::~uar”l 5 I ‘- 1992 t-he building was~”mDler-:::.i’l “es-‘–” ””’ – v::’ – ” “-r- “he \ — I ‘- ‘-U… ‘- ‘- __ … ‘-“- l… _ …, , ‘. __ ……. ” …”, _ _ __ ~ …… …..;4. ‘- _ … .. Defendant has refused co pay ~im c ~ e insured sum ~ ~ 534 5 .000 . 00 . The Defendant entered appearance :;n ~ a v – Q – ~, _ .;t’::: “; .s.r:a f i led a defence and counterclaim on September :4 . :9 93 ~~e e ssence -~ ehe a. er~ ence l.S t h at no po~- _cy eX.l Stec- oetween ::;.e :-‘_ a ~. ~:~. _ ana- : n’ e Defendant because the :?lainc i f f ~ ncr~c h f~l lv answered ~~e sci on No . t .~ 4 in the insurance proposal and Defendant icy of insurance in pursuance of che trut ness of t answers the proposal. Defendant did not fact have a counterolalm -or it scribed as a counterclaim olaimed ~ochl~g aga_nsc che ? aint:’ff. However there lS _ncl an’ ::T ::::-r “‘L _ adi~g In paragraph 13 whicn is ….. ::1 :act. supporc::…ve ‘~r :e:-:Ce re he Defendant s~ated that ::…t was provided in _~e deo”a::::-atl n aCt ” ” t the pronosc.l form that cne sa::…d p sa~ s::ct.:~ : :~ ,.~ .. e is the policy and that c sald clarat::…on” S :-le be incorporated in the said polioy. In fact the declarat does not say a~~ _~ac :nere stipulates the agreement of c Plalntiff hac che al 1 orm the basis of che ooncracc becween the ?la::…nt::… and t Defendant. request for hearing was filed on r ” _he cri Plainc::…ff gave ev::…de~ce ~ – -~esses. Hazel Joseph, the Assistanc r of Ylinvl 3.~a .ascanet for the Defendant, gave evidence on benal -he fenoe and led three witnesses. were a ;:j.Lasse ‘-“-;::, _ .. ar les and Claudius Francis. Donald Jawahir stated t ‘Nhen he ‘went -.~ _’-‘ – ….. e -ne _nsurance icy, he spoke and al t ‘wi ch ?ecer 3ergasse I jec:e s He taced chat Bergasse took the a~ =orm ana ~ .,. I”‘ …”: … then asked him to sign -c. At firsc ne Bald 3ergasse did noc explain anything in c sal proposal form to him _::…ne C’/ ____ :::e -_”-“‘ :-i:e ……… ~ “””‘it’ …….. — ‘–“- ~ … ‘-” ‘- ::::-e che scated oa::::-c’_~lar chac Bergasse did not read ouc :0 nlm o~esc::…on ~ -ne ::::-oc:osa~ orm. shall set out that quesclon oe_ow, f ..r He stated that in or about 1988 he owned a pick-up T14 27 and a Bedford Tipper, H3716. He said these vehicle s were ~nsured with Alliances and St. Lucia Insurances did not speak :0 ~ ~ m ~n May 1988 abouc the policies in respec: of =~e two veh~c: ~s. :-:e said hE.l . could not remember receiving correspondence ::::’-077: :::e company concerning those two vehicles. He said in 1985 he had a building ac ?ores:iere ~::sured ~ich St. Lucia Insurances and thac while the policy was e f:ect the building was affected by fire p ~r:iall y. ~e said :~e company t ook about 2 – 3 years to pay Dlm and oecause ‘-‘ .L =::ac. :::e~ay ~e did noc ask St. Lucia Insurances co insure anychi::g :or ~ ~ m . ~ e said after the time period of the vehicle insurances :lao =::-:..:n —‘1r ‘”–” \”…4,. ‘- :-:e simply went elsewhere. He said he could noc remember recelv~ :: g money from St . Lucia Insurances in May ~988. When he was cross-examined he rei:erac.ed =ha: ~as ~er~asse who compler-prJ t-h.::: pro-posal “::01 :·”i ;:, . ~’1h en.:le ‘,:::”Z c::a.:. _e::.:e c:. respect of certain answers, for examp le , the an swe r t o q u est:.~o::. 3 and how could Bergasse arrive ac such answers he said: ” ::: say ‘:.CW ‘iery few of these questions Mr , Bergasse asked me. ‘ ! He stated that he did not remember recelvlng any :e::er from St. Lucia Insurances cancelling the policies o f the two ‘!ehicles or receiving in any leccer a cheque f or Sl03 . ~O a s representing =he balance of premiums recurned. He said he is not telling lies and ~s speaKing the :ru t ~ a nd he did not deliberately give the wrong answer to ques:~on ~o . ~ . :-:e said he did not know at the =~me t .:;.ac St . _uc::.a :::nSL!ranCf;’::’ ::”,Q:::aDcelled the policies on his vehicles. After the fire which descroyed the ~ns ure d property ?ebruary 1992, Minvielle and Chastane: :JeCCime a.ge!””:: s —- ….. :::e =ef.2r~ danc :.n Sepcember 1992. Hazel 30seDh scacec:. :::a: s~ e oecame awar~ o f :ne ~ c aim after Minville and Chastanet took over t files in respect of that claim was handed over to not pay the Plaintiff any money. She s she appointed s usters, Francis Rosemin and and recommendations on the clalm. sa she ~e£~~ded ~::e ?lalnt:iff s premium. a Blasse has been an ~nsuraTIce clerk L~ .~. 3eygasse :Qr ~ fourteen years. s the ? al~t was f liar with the proposal torm whi the ?laint~:_ ad endered ~n evidence. She said her handwriting ~s on .. e ~ :1e said she asked the aintiff quest~ons she -~ .3. c. S ‘,N e as the ? aintiff indicated. She sald:)n t .. e oaSlS ‘:::3.r1s’.”lie s ”””‘ he form she entered ~nto the contract with -he _a’–”’::’::: she was cross-examined she sald ~r. 3ergasse “””‘!.. ~-.: A_~ .~ -he form and he did not r torm after was ~ ~ -=:”:1 ,-rU:: sai~ a would not complete ~crm lt~O~t ~3 ent -~Q stions. Charles has been ~n the empl f St. ~Cla _nsurances for thirteen years, last ten of which oe :’:-‘.. . g rect:or ~ He stated that his company an :.nsurance on -he la ~””f’IS -~~ Forestiere property and in the course f -he ~ere was a f re at the place and tCJ.e rt ‘,Ner:t completely burnt. .,., ~.’:-‘ He said arson was suspected out there was no ~onc_ – h I , . , . L e calm so nls ::::ompany OOK a :::.ec: s’ ~ eX”l stlng po 1″l Cles w. n,l cn. .. – .n ac. on tne _alnt_==_ .; ::lr:-‘;es ana ‘v\las c.:vldence -.~ ~’-‘

4.Have you or anyone with a :::inancial Ye No. interest in prcperty co be insured ever had a propos cr icy – ~efused Declined, Cancell cr had c~al ~erms imposed? If “yes” Please state the name f tte Company and type ::)f ::..nsurance. In her closing address Mrs. ::”ew::..s tted t~.ac – _”e ~ t f the matter was in clause 4 of ~he proposal :’::ounse..:. tt che question and answer was a macer_al ~act rmlng _he basis f any acceptance of the policy : ‘nsurance Learned Counsel re tc Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 25, paragraphs 367 and 369. submitted that :tere was a ~””‘u “. _ disclcse truthful tte answer tc so. referred to the :ollowlng cases: :npc.s .~ .::e est :2.:1 ~ dr:.e .e … V'””‘.-..; .;: “:ac :-:C’C. :J.one RE ARBITRATION between YAGER V GUARDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY 1913 KBD 38; 42. GLICKSMAN V LANCASHIRE INC. 1926 H/L 139; 143. LOCKER AND WOOLF LIMITED V WESTERN AUSTRALIAN COMPANY 1936 KBD 408; 413 -415. Modern Insurance Law by John Birds, Third Edition, page 135. MacGillivray and Parking ton on Insurance Law 7th Edition, paragraph 831. Mr Francois in reply based his submissions on ~wo ses. He submitted that in respect of ~he answer ~o questioD No.4 there was no material non-disclosure of any racts. Secondly, he said even ,~ ~nere was a mater~al ~o~-d_sclosure of facts the Defendant had not discharged ~he ~~ 9roo£ t s case for whomsoever is saying there is a fraudulent srepresentation the burden of proof is on ~~m. He rel_ed on the authority of DERRY V PEEK 1899 14 A.C. 337. T should like to begin by stating some of the general 9r’nc~ples of non-marine insurance, name the requirement ~ _he ~ most faith and the duty ~o make sc_osure~;:: “ate::::-::.. 1 :acts. See Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 25 paragraphs 365 and 366. The basic test of material faots ~ nges JDOn whether the mind of a prudent insurer would be affected, ei~her ng whether to take the risk at – , a.ll. or : .A.-x:.::g _ ::e reml um f knowledge of a particular fac~ had been disc-osed. -:’here the fact must be one affecc.. ng che risk. See 9araa::,’ac._ ;; ~ re are certain facts affecting , -, – “” the mora~ nazara ana one S’L1C!1 set facts which it is often material ~o know is chat n relation to insurances comparable with that s . ::ere :::..ave been prevlous losses or claims or that In relation to any class of _nsurance the renewal of previous policies has been refused or orem~J~S have been clined. In Re .~ Arbitration between YAGER AND GUARDIAN ASSURANCE COMPANY 1913 KBD 38 the claimant had failed to sclose Co Assurance that the Liverpool and London and had declined to continue his insurance. When he claimed as a ~esult of a fire the Court held that the fact ehat the L. ~efuse8 ~ to continue the policy was a materi face, e when e s fact became known to the claimant on the 20th September, ~here was no concluded contract, and that it was still ehc d~~ of ~he claimant to disclose such fact to the Guardian, and, hav oml~eed co so the claimant was not entitled ~o ~reat e P0l.lCY as a valid icy. S larly ln GLICKSMAN LANCASHIRE AND GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED 1927 A.C. 139 ~wo partners had Sl and also a declaration at :.he foot ,…) .L ~::e -”'”””‘r””’m _.’-…-‘ ….. ,Il a ~ , ;,.,.;..1.. themselves that the answers co the questions were ~rue, and that they had withheld no information that ~end ::.ncrease the company’s risk, and agreelng chat ~ne Gec.:.ara~or-:s 3nG answers S d be the basis of :::.he cCucrac:: bet’,veen_hem ‘ind – “”” ~”m~ally. fact was that an insurance company had re ed a proposal for a burglary insurance made by che appellant on a former occasion. House of Lords held ::ha t there ‘lias SUI: I: _::: len~ for ing ehe finding of – arblcrator chat ehe ~efusal ehe insurance office of the proposal made ehe appel_ar-:c on the former occasion was a material face I and ehae fa:::e :”lad been concealed. More relevant to the facts of ehe present case -;::; __ :J.e case of LOCKER AND WOOLF LIMITED AND WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED 1936 1K.B. 408. _n -hat case ehe :our- -~ ea_ “lel.Q e thg ~~ligation on a person mak_r-:g a pyc~osal fo~ :r-:surar-:c agalnSt fire to disclose all ,naterlal. ;_-C- i,’–..1_-_ ;”‘”:”:’;” , s …. ‘” ‘””, r~ … ‘-…..I ‘- ‘V’~:2′:J. maeters exclusively relating to fire ~lsks, but exeends 3r-:y ~aeeer whi would influence the judgmene or ehe lr-:surance oompany decl ng whether to take or refuse ehe rlSK. ~he ::.r-:-end_nc 3ssured, a proposal for fire insurance resDect ::::e:.~ 8:’–=~’:SeS answer to the question: “Has this o r any o ther insurance o f yours been declined by any other company?” answered “No.” Thereupon a policy was issued. It subsequently appeared that some time before that Pro-posal the assured had a-p-plied to another com-pany for a icy- o~n motorcars I but the application was declined on :he ;rounds o f misrepresentation and non – disclos ure o f certain fact s. ~eld, chat the nor.-disclosure of this refusal o f :he mot o r- car insurance was the non-disclosure of a material fact in the proposal : o r c he fire insurance which therefore ent:tled che fire insurance company to a v oid the policy. There is no dispute chac : he ?laincif: answered =!uescion No . 3 correctly. In a sense the answer to that quescion s nou:d nave put the insurer on inquiry and ;~ he had made the necessary ‘nqulries from St. Lucia Insurances Limited he may well h ave :ound, not only the circumstances of the ?orestiere fire , but a lso :he delay in payment of the cl a im and che resu ltam:: ciecisi on oy St. Lucia Insurances Limited to ~anc~l :h ~ ?lainti:f ‘ s mo t or – c ar insurances. One might well wish to argue that the answer :0 que st:cn 4 of the proposal was not In ract mater::..al . ?aragraph 366 ::alsbury’ s states in part: “However, it is sufficient if che facts ‘”,hich are ciisc losed put the insurers on inquiry and cheir lnquiry wou lci in the normal course elic::..: such : urther :accs a s ~ av ;::;e :;”at.:erial.” In ANGLO-AFRICAN MERCHANTS, LIMITED AND ANOTHER anci BAYLEY 19 69 2 A. E.R. 421 the plaintif: c omoanles ””lsned : :::; .:oca .:..:-:. :nsu rance coverage against a 1 ., ::::-isks f e r a quanc.:..t.:y ~F army su r;l~s clo ching about 23 y ears old , ~Nn.::.. c:-,.. -,_ _.. …… 0__ ‘>I ‘ “-~:: 2!”‘.:.ded ::::r- ~esa …… ‘2 ;::;uyers abr oad . The plaintiffs ::..nst.:::::-ucted a :irm _F ;::; rOKe::::-s and : nf o rmed D. (a director o f the fi ::::-m ) t.:hae :he goods were ;cv ernmen: s u rO lUs and that they were new. –, communi c aced ‘”,ieh a ::-:::> c…..:. r_r”–.’n.I,.. ………….,… firm o f brokers who insured the ;cods as new . Dor:icn – F :ne clothing was stolen and when :he -;>J..a::…ne.:..ffs cla::..mea : n : ne ;::c~.:..cy :hey —.. —-~——~ —“-“.’-~’——‘-‘—•. –. ~-.—–, .. —. . u._ .• ~ ‘:”~” .,-::.~ … . ” – ,…, ~.”, ,,,,~«.. …. – “: ._ ””’:c-“”,’II,:,..;.’ • … V~~ , ,’ – – . _ … , •• C””_” _~ . __ ~ ._ . ” ·4i.. fa iled for non-disclosure of material facts. :n the course of his judgment Magaw J. held that even if it could properly be said that an insurer waived his right to complain of non-disclosure if he had received information which would puc an ordinary , c areful , insur1f on enquiry and neverthe less failed : 0 enquire , a ~ o r m al prudenc insurer would not have been puc on enquiry a s : 0 :~e ?r ec ~s e ~ ature o f the goods by reason o f’ seeing :hem desc riced a s ‘ ‘:’.ew :nen ‘ s c lot hes in bales for export. ” The declaration at the end o f the proposal s c~ ;:;u .:.. .i ced :::’at the proposal shall f orm the basis o f :he contract be: ~e en :’:’.e ?lainc ~ff and the Defendant. In Glicksman’S case Viscount Dunedin ~ad chis t o say at page 143. He said: “Then I come to the law of ~he law ~as c f:e~ oeen s ta t ed , but perhaps i t is just a s well to state it again. .:::'” contract o f i nsurance is denominated a contract uberrimae :~ael. It lS po ss ible fo r the p ersons :0 stipulace :nac answers c ercain questions shall be the b?8 ~ s (I f ::he insur:..:-:cc , and . := : ::’a t is done then there is no question :is to che materialicy _e:: , .::::;ecause t.he persons have contracted chat ::here should be :n acer~a l i: y ~n chose questions.” adopt that statement of the =…aw and hold c hat ::. ::’e 3.nswer c.o question 4 of the p roposa l cecomes :nate r ial . Se e pa r a grapn 3 91 of Halsbury’s and paragraphs 8 15 , 32 4 , and 826 ~ := :~e Sixth Edition of MacGILLIVRAY and PARKINGTON ::::n INSURANCE LAW. T do not believe the Plalnc~:: :::’a c ~as : ne _ate ?e:er 3ergasse who filled in the proposal :c·rm .f=,.-..,..,…. -‘-” …… ::.:..m . :i~d : ydia 31asse :0 ce a witness of truch and :;: beL.eve –:.e :::c- ……………. – ~ •• ct l.. 3ne “Ha S : …… e one wno f illed in the proposal for :he ?lainciff and ac. ~ ~ 3 d ic : acion . find that Blasse filled in the form ai:er receiving :ne appropriace r esponses from the Plainci:f. ~..J. :;ar:. =- c ~…:lar .8e …… :.. ‘2″‘le -: .:-‘. . e “I’Jlt.:1eSS that she asked the Plainti: : :he quescion ~o . ~ ~ nd ne answered the negative. Since che proposal :orm was :illed 3.3 dic tated . ,- – ‘– ‘-~-~- … ;.”– “.~’~””””~~~””., …. 1 the difficult questions of not consideration. See paragraph 831 et. seq. of Seventh lfcH.tioo of MacGILLIVRAY and PARXINGTON as well as Modern Insurance Law by Jonh Birds, Third Edition, page 135; BAWDlfN and LOBDOlic”.,.. -~ EDINBURG &, GLASGOW ASSURANCE COMP ANY 1 S 92 2 Q. B . 534; NEWSHOLME BROS. AND ROAD TRANSPORT &, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1929 2K.B.

3.r:ce…:.. :~e cles , He tendered a letter dated 25th May, 1988 s to the aintiff. “Mr. Mcdonald Jawahir, Forrestiere, ST. LUCIA.” I t is not disputed that the letter cle y purports ~o cancel insurances on vehicle T1427 and H3716. The ~etter also stated t a cheque of $103.00 was enclosed as represent_ng _ne re for the unexpired terms f ~ne ~nsurance. es stated that the _etter was cost tne a~n~ __ f and it was not returned and t the cheque ~n t::’e _e;: te2:’ .. e’.re_ “arne back t him. When he was cross-examined he said that he assumed awan2:r received s letter for it was not returned he naa “_’ “‘.-.. 1.…\I :::.::e :!:~ :”eans f ~rp ning whether the Plaintiff receiv~~ the _etter, He said he could not say whether the letter was reg~stered or not. He stated further: “I have had letters my mail COX C:1 ,:::’lQ I agree mistakes are made in the Post: £L.:.i..”…”..:~…”\ ..” “”‘”-‘ • .8e 8ng to me. e have told me they posted things to me that = never rece2:ved. There is the possibili that Plaint2:ff never rece~ved _De etter or cheque. ” audius Francis is employed …. rr :~~e :ir:n ?~ar::: __ s ?8serrllTI Limited, .-nsuyance ::”oss aci-‘~st:ers 3..::’ .. ‘::1 ~~ ::::;,~-,-==–l:::’S. ~e carr’i.eci out invest t 2:ons ‘=or 3e::::-g2.S 5.,”_ surrounding the circumstances of , ~ , :::.e – .:re ‘N’n:.c:: ‘””I—c:: …. -“”C,,-,,-_ -,-m2:tea the insured property and he stated that ::’lS ~nvestlgac_ons reveal a misrepresentation by the ?laintiff wlch respect t::’e answer glven to question 4 of the proposa~. ~e was not cross-examlnea. ·, .. ,t~’~”””~’ “” I think it is time to set out the questions and answers re to matter. “3 Have you or anyone ‘Nith a :::inaneial Yes No interest s prope ever suffered a loss, her nsured cr not, from any peril ~o be ‘nsured against at t s or any ctter oeat If “yes II ease stOle (a) Date of css b) Cause of loss c) Amount

356.As I said earlier I believe t Plaintiff answered “NOli – question 4 on the proposal form. issue t s case s whe the aintiff in giving answer lied to the insurers as learned Counsel for the Def The ~nsurance uster Mr. audius Francis, had suspicions as to t cause f t fire to insured property and was of the ew t the Pla iff fraudulently misrepresented himself in re to answer to the said quest 4. To det th~s quest it is crucial to find out whether t PIa iff ever ~ece~ved t letter to him by St. ,…i Cl. Tnsurances. s letter ed 25th 988 was not delivered by hand to the Pl iff and he not s document to indicate that rece::.. :::.-nhere is no that the let ter was regist to him. Pi was enclosed the letter. . . ::..s no e ena:::. ;lS cheque. When he was cross- Charles conceded that stakes are made Post fice people have t d hi that they have posted things to never :-eceived further conceded that there is the possibili that the iff never received the letter or cheque. law in this case has been correctly stat bv earned Counsel the Plaintiff but s cas’? · .. ·ill turn on the :acts. ‘_”heL’C was no doubt in Yager’s case. He was told the agent f the re company that he had bad news for him and when – cla what was the bad news the agent told him that t ::..nsurer was not going to continue with the _nsurance. :·”t\~: all the difficult questions o f agency do not ar~se for considerat i on. See paragraph 831 et . seq . of the Seventh Edition of MacGILLIVRAY and PARKINGTON as well as Modern Insurance Law by Jonh Birds, Third Edition, page 135; and BAWDEN and LONDO~ EDINBURG & GLASGOW ASSURANCE COMPANY 1892 2 Q.B. 534; NEWSHOLME BROS. AND ROAD TRANSPORT & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 19 29 2K.B.

356.As I said earlier I bel ieve the Plaintiff answered’~o ” ~ = queseion 4 on the pzoposal form . The re a l ~ss u e ~n chis case ~ s ~h et h er the Plaintiff in giving that answer ~~ed to c he ~nsure rs a s sugges ted by learned Counse l for the 8efendant. ~he ~ns urance ad:~s t e r . ~ r . Claudius Francis, had suspicions as t o the cause o f tne :~re to the insured property and was of the view thac t he :?lainciff had fraudulently misrepresented himself in relation to t he a nswer he gave to the said question 4 . To determine chis question it is c rucial to find out whether the Plaintiff ever ~eceived che letter pObt~d to him by St. ~UCi2 Insurances. ~h i s lerr~Y ~ ~ced =Sth May , 1988 was not delivered by hand to the Plaintiff and he d i d noc sign any document to indicace that he had recel ved -=’ ‘:-:ere is no evidence that the l etter was registered ~ .. – : ‘:-:eque ‘Nas enclosed in the lett e r. ~here ~s no evidence :ha~ ~e ~ sed tha t cheque. When he was cros s-exam~ ned Cyrus Charl es ~ o nceded that mistakes are made in the Post Office and people nave : o ~ ~ ‘:-:lm thae they have posted things co him which he had ne v e r re c eived and he further conceded thae there is the possibility chac t he :?laintiff never received the letter or cheque . The l aw in this case has been correct lv staced ~v le a rned Counsel for the Plaintiff bue this c ase “N”i ~~ curn en the ‘:::ac t s . _ ~ :e .. cc was no doubt in Yager’s case. He was told by the agenc c f the refusing company that he had bad news for him and when the c ~ai man c asked what was the bad news the agenc told ‘:-: i m ~h at t he :nsurer was noe going to continue with the ~nsurance. In this case there can only be a presumption the Plaintiff received the letter from St. Lucia Insurances cancell his motorcar insurances. I have regard to Halsbury’ s ~aws::::f and, Fourth Edition, Volume 17( paragraphs 35, and ‘/1 i ~ “”‘”‘ -‘- ~ T~ Plaintiff has denied reading the ~etter. ?~alntlff not shown himself to be a very truthful person. 3esldes on a daad man he tried to show that the house at Forestiere was cnlv ially burnt whereas s Charles stated that the prope went in flames and was complete burnt. less _ cannot say on a balance of probabilitj ‘2S :::hat am convinced ~ .. at :::e ::::-ece the letter. I am therefore unable to conclude wlth any of assurance that when the 2laintiff gave the lve answer to tion 4 in the proposal for insurance that ~ls::::-epresent sstated, suppressed or withheld information. _ am as suspicious as others have been but should not be carri away suspicions and possibly do an ustice to the ?la nt __ f. T would accordingly 9nt’2::::- dgment for the ?laintlff t,e sum f $345,000.00 and his costs to be agreed to t …………………. A. N. J. MATTHEW PUISNE JUDGE . ” _L. -.. -::—– .– $.\ W “$$ •• “