1   DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE—LVSUR NCE BRANCH.

under this policy when death or disablement may have been caused in consequence of exposure to any obvious or unnecessary danger.'

The assured was frozen to death on the prairie near Fort McLeod, to which place he was returning from one of his trips in company with the driver. V\ bile still about eight miles out the wagon broke down. The weather had turned suddenly very cold and stormy, and the assured being too cold and numb to walk, and unable to ride it was agreed that he should remain where he was while the driver rode to McLeod for assistance, but he died before the driver returned. The assured was sufficiently warmly clothed for the weather as it was when he set out, but not for the storm which he encountered.

Held, that he met with his death as the result of an injury effected through external violent and accidental means within the meaning of the policy, and that it could not be said that he hall exposed himself to any obvious or unnecessary danger, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover.

Sinclair r. Maritime Passenger Assurance Company, 7 Jur. N.S., 367, distinguished.

The praccipe to set down an appeal to the full court should contain the grounds of appeal intended to be relied on and an amendment to enable a party to set up a technical and unmeritorious defence will be refused.

(8th June, 1893 ; North-west Commercial Travellers' Association r. The London Guarantee and Accident Company, 10 Manitoba Reports, 537.)

7—GUARANTEE INSURANCE.

By a contract in writing made in 1890, the defendants agreed to guarantee the plaintiffs against pecuniary loss by reason of fraud or dishonesty on the part of an employee during one year from the date of the contract, or during any year thereafter in respect of which the defendants should consent to accept the premium which was the consideration for the contract. The defendants accepted the premium in respect of each of the three following years, and gave receipts entitled "renewal receipts, " in which the premiums were referred to as " renewal premiums.

Ibid. that the contract was a contract of insurance made or renewed after the commencement of the Insurance Corporations Act, 1892, within the meaning of section 33.

Held, also that upon the true construction of subsection (2) the contract could not be avoided by reason of misstatements in the application therefor, because a stipulation on the face of the contract providing for the avoidance thereof for said misstatements was not in stated terms limited to cases in which such misstatements were material to the contract.

(29th June, 1895. Common Pleas Division. London West r-s. London Guarantee Co., 26 Ontario Reports, p. 520.)

The provision of section 33 of the (Ontario) Insurance Corporations Act, 1892, referred to in the decision cited above is as follows :

Where any insurance contract made by any insurance corporation

is evidenced by a sealed or written instrument, all the terms and conditions of the contract shall lie set out by the corporation in full on the face or back of the instrument forming or evidencing the contract ; and unless so set out, no term of, or condition, stipulation, warranty or proviso modifying or impairing the effect of any such contract made or renewed after the commencement of this Act, shall be good or valid, or admissible in evidence to the prejudice of the assured or beneficiary.

S—BURGLARY INSURANCE.

The judgment of Mr. Justice Dugas, in the case of John A. Grose, prosecutor, is. John B. 11-00d, published at page xlii of the report for 1894, was affirmed by the Court of Queens Bench (Mr. Justice Wurtele) 30th March 1896.

9—MARINE INSURANCE.

(cc.) Where payment of an insurance risk is resisted on the ground of misrepresentation it ought to be made very clear that such misrepresentation was made.

Misrepresentation made with intent to deceive vitiates a policy, however trivial or immaterial to the risk it may be if honestly made it only vitiates when material and substantially incorrect.

Representation in a marine policy that the vessel insured was built in 1890, when the fact was that it was an old vessel, extensively repaired and given a new name and register, but containing the original engine, boiler and machinery with some of the old material, is a misrepresentation and avoids the policy whether made with intent to deceive or not.

(13 March, 1894, Stevenson es. Nova Scotia Marine Insurance Company—23 Canada Supreme Court Reports, p. 137.)

(h.) M. shipped on a schooner a cargo of railway ties for a voyage from Gaspe to Boston, and a policy of insurance on the cargo provided that " the insurers shall not he liable for any claim for damage on—lumber—but liable for a total loss of a part if amounting to five per cent on the whole aggregate value of such articles." A certificate given by the agents of the insurers when the insurance