67.  Insurance— Breach  of  warranty  —

Proof  of  breach  —  Protest  —  Defendant  in  an
action  on  policies  of  insurance  relied  among  other
defences  on  an  alleged  violation  of  a  warranty
that  the  vessel  would  sail  on  her  voyage  not  later
than  3id  Dec,  1882.  The  vessel  set  sail  on  that
day  and  was  subsequently  lost.  The  protest,  by
mistake,  stated  the  4th  Dec,  1882,  as  the  day  of
sailing.
Held,  that  even  if  the  protest  admitted  a
breach  of  warranty  it  could  not  be  given  in  evi-
dence to  prove  plea  of  breach.
liobertKon  et  a/,  v.  Pwjh,  20  N.  S.  R.,
(8R.  &G.),  15.
Affirmed  on  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of
Canada.
Roherhon  v.  Pwjh,  15  S.  C.  R.,  706;
9  C.  L.  T.,  17.
68.  Insurance— Presumption  as  to  notice

—The  sixth  condition  of  the  policy  required  the
insured  to  give  notice  of  loss  in  writing  forthwith
to  the  agent  of  the  corporation,  at  his  office  in
Halifax,  and  to  furnish  preliminary  proof  to  the
corporation  in  fifteen  days.  The  fire  took  place
January  17th.  PlaintilF,  residing  at  Sydney,
C.  B.,  where  the  insured  property  was  situated,
went  on  the  next  day  to  the  sub-agents,  who  sent
a  telegram  to  the  agent,  and  on  January  23rd
plaintiff  sent  the  agent  written  notice,  which  he
received  January  27th.  The  preliminary  proofs
were  prepared  by  the  sub-agents,  January  22nd,
and  received  by  the  agent  early  in  February —
the  agent  could  not  tell  the  exact  date.
Hdd,  that  the  notice  of  loss  was  sufficient,
and  that  the  jury  might  fairly  presume  that  the


preliminary  proof  had  been  sent  in  within  fifteen
days,  wiiich  did  not  exjjire  until  February  2nd.
Peppit  v.  N.  U.  it-  Mtrvaiitile  Inn.  Co.,

\  R.  &(;.,219.
