MACE V. LANCASHIRB INS. CO. 61 �brought if sold in the city of St. Louis, on the fonrth day of April, 1879, for cash, at the market priee. Havingthusascer- tained and fixed the value of the pfoperty destroyed, your ver^ dict will be for the plamtiffs in the sum so fixed, unless ycfi) find for defendants on one or more of the issues presented by the answers, to wbich your attention will now be called. �The defendants, in their several ;an8Vfer8, allege that the plaintifÏB made, under oath, a fal^e and fraudaient claim, represepting their loss to have been $78,219.82, wbile in truth and fact their loss was only $48,000, as plaintiffs well knew, and that this false statement was made with intent to induce defendants to believe that the value of the stock was larger than it was in fact, and was therefore a violation qi one of the conditions of the policy. It is f or you to determine whether this defence is established by the preponderance of the evidence. In order to find for defendants upon this issue youmust believe from the evidence that the statements made under oath by plaintiffs, in their preliminary proofs, as to the value of their stock and the amount of their loss, wei:e in some material point false, and also that theywerefraudulent; thatis to say, intentionally false, or made with the purpose of deceiv- ing and def rauding. A claim honestly made will not render the policy void, even though such claim be erroneous by reason of some degree of exaggeration or overestimate ; but if the insured made, with reference to the quality or value of the goods in- sured, a claim wbich he knew to be false and unjust, then he cannot reoover ianything. �In the event that you should find the loss to be less than that Btated by the insured in their preliminary proof, that mere fact would not be sufficient to sustain the defenoe, though if the discrepancy between the true value, and that stated by the in- sured in their preliminary proofs, is large, this would be evi- dence bearing upon the issue of f raud, to be considered by the jury for what it is worth. In other words, you will perceive that the defendants, in order to succeed upon this issue, must satisfy you from the evidence — First, that there was a false statement in the preliminary proof as to the value of the goods destroyed; and, second, that such false statement was made ����
