It seems to me very extraordinary that some more satisfactory explanation of the discrepancies between the claim and the actual amount of stuff on the premises, which were explored by representa: tives of the insurance company within two or three days after the fire, could not be given by plaintiffs. The company's representatives were in Nanking when the members of the firm were all there, and I repeat that a firm as big as the plaintif® firm, employing some 40 persons, including coolies as we are told, should not be able to answer question as to how much stuff they had on the premises at a certain time. Therefore I must d the previous cases, idence of fraud was implied by the extraordinary excess of th 50,000 and Tis, 51,000. 'The value of the goods damaged or destroyed {in the five was Ts. 1,500, less thi one-third of what the claim have had 0 of these cases before me in dealing' with this ease, and I hav waured to apply to this ease the same tests T applied to the others, I tried to find some ination for the discrepancy. It suggested here that plaintiffs were unable to make a detailed claim of the goods lost because their day books were destroyed in the fire. They stated that their claim was made up from such books as they had remaining after the fire. They substantiated their claim for this sum of something like Tis. done. That evidence has not been sufficiently answered by the plaintiff firm, and therefore there must be judgment for the defendant with costs.
Mr. Lipson Ward, representing, defendants, applied for an order taxing the costs on a higher scale tan that which ordinarily applies Mr. P. W. Goldring (for plai put it to his Lordship th not the power to take 'The Judge said he had a clear recollection of rules expressly' framed to give him power to tax Jcosts in the way asked. He would sive judgment for defendants, with costs to be taxed on the scale applicable to Tls. 16,000.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.