` rnmsxr ·v. enamaum er./a gu. ms. co. 47 .
Pnmskv vi Gmmama ‘F.·&;M. Iss. C0. ·
` `(Oircuit Uvwrt. E. D. Mchigan. January 11; 18814) A
1. Fran INBURANCE—FORFEITURE—INOREASE or Risk. . V A A i
An insurance policy provided that, if the risk should be increased by any
means whatever within the control of the assured, without the consent of the
companiy. the policy should be void. The property, which consisted of a
stock 0 goods, was described as “contained in the first floor and basexnentof
the building. " Held, that a removal of the entire property from the first door
to the basement would not avoid the policy, though the risk were increased
by such removal. · · · ·` ·‘ ~ ~· ` t A ~ t ~A
2. Sams-Jlousrnucrrou or Por.rcr—Comv1.1c·rme Csnsms.   A ·A V
Where a policy upon a “Astock of candies, confeptionery, toys, fruit, and all
- such other stock as is usually kept for sale in confectionezstores, " Aprovided
A ° thatsuch policy should“cease anddetermine if ‘*- * *‘ ‘ e—works shouldbe
kepttemporarily or otherwise in the stocks of merchandise _· * * A * yinsured
, herein, " it was held that, if fire-works were usually kept instocks of the kind
insured, the written part of the policy would control eprinted part, and the
‘ keeping of flre·works wouldnot avoidithe policy. i * ~·.
13. Samui-Loss»—Fnsn1>uns:Nr Bummse. . · » . V · A
- Plaintiff was charged with the, fraudulent burning, of the propert ., The
only evidence upon this point was that therewas a social gatheringjn the
store upon the evening before the nre; that plaintiff and her husbah did not
leave the place unti1‘3~o?clocklin the morning; thatithe husband closed the
j store fort Ae night, t00k the keywith him, an that they went directly to their "
·h0¤¤¢. The nre broke out a little, after 6 in the morning, in the basement.
Theevidence was clear that some one"had entered the building, and act the
‘   property on fire, and there wasno evidence that thebuilding had beenhroken
A into, or that anyone but l>}3i¤tiff’s husband had the key to the outer door.
. Held, that there was no evidence that `plaintiifherself was privy tothe b‘urn·
" ing, and that she would not be `aifectedbyvthe fraudulent burning of the prop-
~- erty by her husband. jj ;·· .. .· 7 c ,- f  
4, W1rn,nsswD1scnnnxr1ueq-Drscnnmou or Comm-,. A _
_ Plaintiffs husband was asked. upon_ cross-examination, whether he was not
A out upbnbaihcharged with an assault with intent toinrurder. »Held, that such
1 question was within the discretion of the court, and its exclusion could not be
claimed aserror. _ A A ·- A I , , A _,'| » A s . .
(Syllabus by the Court.), A'A_ A ,A i AA   , e A4
tl .On`Motion;foraNewATrial.   °’: ‘, '(`_ _ _ ` ( V l " 1   »
A This was an action upon a policy of insuranceupen th'e following `prop·
erty owned by the plaintiff', `viz.: A A _ VA _" V ' I A A  *
"$250_ on her stock, of candies, confectioneries, toys, fruit. and all such
other stock as is usually, kept for sale in confectionery stores; $100 on her
soda fountain, generators, and appurtenances belonging thereto; $400 on her
store, ice-cream parlor, and Ashop furniture and hxtures, including brick oven
and belongingst $125 onber saloonfurnituireand fixtures, beer-pump, mir~
ror, bottles, and glass~ware;A $10 on her awning outside of building;. $25 on
her stock of wines, beers,. liquors, andcigars; and $100 on her poo1—table, A
balls, andcues,-—-all contained in the first story and basement of the three-
A story brick building occupied by the insured as a confectionery store, bakery,
saloon, " etc.` e ( j , ’“ A 1
The defenses were (1) that the risk had been increased by the removal
‘of the entire property from the Hrst story to the basement of the build-
ing in which it was kept; (2) ithattire-works were kept in the stock cou-