Majority
Headnote
Negligence (§ 134[1] )—Actions—Sufficiency of Evidence.The barn and other property, for the loss of which the plaintiff seeks to recover, was destroyed by fire in the early morning of August 9, 1908. The fire was discovered shortly after midnight, and the complaint alleges that John Ast, the defendant’s intestate, carelessly, negligently, and willfully set fire to the hay in the barn, thus causing the conflagration and destruction of the property.
The plaintiff lived upon a farm situate on the west side of Union Road, in the town of Cheektowaga, Erie county. John Ast lived about 500 feet south on the same road. About a half hour before the fire was discovered he was seen on the road, south of the barn, smoking a pipe, and going, not in the direction of the barn, but toward his home. He has not been seen or heard from since that night. After the fire there were found in the ashes pieces of charred human bones and a match safe, a pocket knife, and a flint arrowhead, identified as those carried by John Ast in his lifetime. These articles, with the small pieces of bone, were interred in the cemetery after .funeral services had been held at the home of the brothers of John Ast.
A girl 12 vars old also claims to have seen the form of a man in the fire, resembling somewhat John Ast. Her testimony is challenged as unreliable. Whether or not she actually saw what she claims to .have seen, I am quite convinced that John Ast was in the burning building and lost his life there. I do not think, however, that it fol
There is evidence tending to show that John Ast was in poor health; that he had become morbid, with a tendency to suicidal mania; and that he made statements the day before the fire that he would die soon. Assuming that he intended to take his own life, as plaintiff’s counsel seems to suggest, and that he committed suicide at the time of the fire, even then it is quite as reasonable to conclude that he went into the building after the fire had started and did the unnatural act of taking his own life, as that he set the fire for that purpose. I think there has not been shown such a chain of circumstances, unbroken and so closely connected, as to warrant the conclusion that John Ast set the fire.
The plaintiff’s exceptions should be overruled, the motion for a new trial denied, and judgment directed for the defendant upon the non-suit, with costs. All concur, except SPRING and WILLIAMS, JJ., who dissent.