Case

The order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial in this case was reversed by a decision of Department One, on the sole ground that the finding as to the amount of respondent’s loss was contrary to the evidence. A rehearing having been granted, we are satisfied, after reargument and re-examination of the record, that we misconstrued the testimony of the witness Pam, and were led to an erroneous conclusion as to the effect of it by failing to add to the invoice price of the goods purchased the whole amount of the freight,— $993. This was necessary in order to obtain a proper basis for the computation as to the value of the goods destroyed. Making this correction, the computation shows that the goods destroyed were worth a little in excess of four thousand dollars, and so there is evidence sufficient to support the verdict.

As to other points involved in the appeal, we adopt the opinion of the Department.

Judgment and order are affirmed.

McFarland, J., Paterson, J., Sharpstein, J., Thornton, J., Works, J., and Fox, J., concurred.

The following is the decision of Department One, above referred to, rendered on the 31st of May, 1889 :—•

This is an action on a fire insurance…