196 FEDERAL REPORTER. �miied with the procedent matter undcr one coiint, and say "he lias not done or performed (tll." That is bad pJeading. �Here is a specifie matter of defence : "For a tliird and fur- ther defence to the matters and things in said petition stated and set forth, the defendants say that after the happening of the said alleged loss and damage to said goods, to-wit, on the twelfth day of May, in the year A. D. 1879, the plaintifïs appeared in the city of St. Louis, bofore James P. Dawson, a notary public, duly commissioned and authorized to admin- ister oaths in said city, and then and, there plaintifs, in writing, made preliminary proof of their said alleged loss and damage, and in said writings, among other things set forth, the plaintifïs stated that, at the time said alleged loss and damage happened as aforesaid, the plaintiffs had, in said building in said policies described, a large quantity of goods of the description mentioned, of the value of $78,219.32, and that the same were consumed and damaged by said fire ; and then and there plaintifïs signed their names to said prelimi- nary proofs, and made oath before the said James P. Dawson that the matters and things in the said preliminary proofs stated and set forth were true, and then and there the plain- tiffs delivered the said preliminary proofs of their said loss to the defendants, and demanded of the defendants payment of the sum of $8,000, pro rata, as for a total loss of the said sum of $78,000; whereas, in truth and in fact, the whole value of said goods at the time of the said loss and damage, happening as aforesaid, did not exceed the sum of $48,000, as the plaintifïs then well knew. And the defendants aver that the plaintifïs made the said false statements in said pre- liminary proofs of said loss, and delivered the same to the defendants, with the fraudulent intent to induce defendants to believe that, at the time the alleged loss and damage haj)- pened as aforesaid, the said goods so damaged and consumed by said fire were of the value of $78,000 ; and with the fraud- ulent intent to conceal from the defendants the actual value of the goods so damaged and consumed by said fire; and with the fraudulent intent to induce defendants to believe that they were bound to pay to the plaintifïs the sum of $8,000; ��� �
