Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/781

 PUTNAM ». COMMONWEAIiTH INS. 00. 767 �but only so long. Such is the meaning of clause 4. The policy is Buspended only while the forbidden use continues, and revives when it ceases. In this view, and to give proper and harmonious effect to ail the clauses of the policy on the subject, the clause in regard to keeping and using the enu- merated articles should be construed as affecting the policy only BO long as the articles are kept or used. �6. A. S. Putnam, the plaintiff's agent, was asked on his direct examination as to what was said between him and Carr, the defendant's agent, as to the ar junt of insurance A. S. Putnam wished on the property at the time he applied for insurance, when the two $1,000 policies were issued to him by Carr. The question was objected to by the defendant on the ground that the conversation was in reference to a Burrendered policy, not the policy in suit, and was therefore immaterial. The question was allowed and answered. The evidence was competent. It tended to show the knowledge professed by Carr as to the prier amount of insurance on the goods in question, and to prove the defence which is held good. �A. S. Putnam was allowed to give evidence, under the defendant's objection, showing that he did not read the two $1,000 policies when they were delivered to him; that he did not examine the policy in suit when it was delivered to him; and that he first noticed the provision as to other insurance, in the policy in suit, after the fire. This evidence was competent, as, if he did not read and know the contents of the defendant's $1,000 policy and $2,000 policyin respect to other insurance, his prier communication of the amount of other insurance to Carr was left to operate in fuU force. The natural inference that he would have read the policies and thus Have seen the mistake was negatived, and it was proper thus to negative it. �The contents of the Hoyt & Butler policy were properly excluded. No other exceptions in regard to evidence seems to be insisted on by the defendant. �The motion for a new trial is denied in each case, and judgment is ordered in each case on the report of the referee, with costs. ����