Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/205

 HATUAWAÏ V. ST. P. F. & M. INS. CO. 197 �ail of which defendants aver was an attempt by the plaintiffs to defraud the defendants in the premises, and is contrary to tlic ternis of said policies." �Tliat cornes, evidently, if true, under one of these provisions of the policy which the party has selected, to-wit: "Any fraiîd or attempted fraud by false swearing, etc., shall cause 'Jio forfeiture of the policy and be a complete bar." That is jjct iip under that provision, I suppose. �Tl]e fourth defence is that the fire was caused by the plaiiitilïs themselves. �The only question raised by the demurrer is whether, in an action of this character, these conditions, precedent aud subsequent, may be pleaded in gross. �The statute, as I interpret it, is this: You may put in a general deniai as to each allegation on which the plaintiffs' nght of recovery depends, instead of putting, as heretofore, a specifie deniai of each seriatim; but when you come to affirmative matters you must then specify each matter of defence according to the rules of pleading pertaining thereto. The demurrer is sustained. ���Hathaway and othcrs v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. �(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri., 1880.) �ÎUeine Insukakcb — Government Vessel— Unlicensed Pilot— Sea- woKTiiraBSs. — The mere faot that the ofïïcers navigating a government vessel ai-e not licensed pilots, does not prima fade render a vessel unsea- worthy under the warranties of marine insurance. �J. Chandler and J. P. FÀlis, for plaintiffs. �Lee, Marshal de Barclay, for defendant. �Motion of defendant for new trial. �Treat, j., (prally.) Concerning this case we have had very fuU conference, and I am now authorized by Brother Krekel to announce that we have reached the same conclusion — ^that the motion for a new trial must be sust lined. The character of the action was this : Certain army officers, being ordered from one post to another, proceeded, under an order from the wat ��� �