
    Boston Marine Insurance Co., App’lt, v. George Slocovich, Res’pt.
    
      (Mew York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed April 9, 1888.)
    
    1. Evidence—Competency of offer to buy to prove value.
    An offer to buy a thing is some evidence of the value of that thing.
    2. Same—Purchase price.
    The point at issue was not the value of the vessel, and the ques- * tian of value became relevant only as it tended to show the motive of defendant in destroying his vessel, if he did destroy it. The defendant was. allowed to show that he had paid $10,000 for her at a private sale. Meld. not error.
    3. Same—Witness cannot be compelled to give evidence that might' CONVICT HIM OF AN OFFENSE—RIGHT OF COURT TO INSTRUCT HIM AS. TO HIS RIGHTS.
    A witness cannot be compelled to disclose any portion of the evidence-that might help to convict him of an offense. _ It is not error for the court to inform the witness of his (the witness) rights and obligations in this respect.
    
      4. Same—Deposition on former trial—For what purpose- competent
    A deposition was offered in evidence which showed that on another occasion the witness had testified to something which was a waiver of the-privilege which lie claimed on this trial. Meld, that the testimony given by the witness on the former examination could only he used for the purpose of contradicting the testimony given by him on this examination, or of refreshing his memory.
    Appeal from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    
      Edward D. McCarthy, for app’lt; Sidney Chubb and Mr. Da Costa, for resp’t.
   Truax, J.

It was alleged in the complaint, and the ■plaintiff attempted to prove on the trial, that the defendant destroyed a vessel which belonged to him, in order to obtain certain insurance which he had effected on that vessel. As part of his case, the defendant called a witness, Mayer, who was a seaman and shipmaster and who was acquainted with the market value of vessels in New York, and asked him whether he had made defendant an offer for the purchase of his vessel. He testified that he made such an offer, and then w-as asked, “What price did you offer?” This question was objected to by the plaintiff, on the ground that it was incompetent. The objection was overruled and the plaintiff excepted.

It has been held that an offer to sell a thing is some evidence of the value of that thing (Harrison v. Glover, 72 N. Y., 451), and there is no reason why -an offer to buy should not have as much weight as an offer by the owner to sell.

The defendant was also allowed to show, under the objection and exception of the plaintiff, that three years be fore he had paid $10,000 for this ship at a private sale. It was not error to receive this testimony. Hoffman v. Conner, 76 N. Y., 121. The vessel was no longer in existence, and the defendant offered the best evidence that he could offer under the circumstances of the case. He showed the cost and the condition of the vessel at the time it was destroyed, and so brought himself within the decision of the court of appeals in Jones v. Morgan (90 N. Y., 4) Moreover, the point at issue was not the value of the vessel, and the question of value became relevant only as it tended to show the motive of the defendant in destroying his vessel, if he did destroy it. We think it was not error to allow the defendant to testify as he did on what he had paid for the vessel.

The court was asked to charge, in substance, that every man is presumed by the law to know the value of his own property, and a difference between actual value and an amount insured for, which is more than one-third the actual value, may be regarded as a willful and fraudulent representation, unless satisfactorily explained; and that if the ship in the month of April, 1883, was not worth more than $10,000 and was insured for $16,000, such over-insuronce would in itself be evidence of fraud.

We think that these requests, as well as the .fifth request, were charged in substance when the court charged the jury that in determining this question of fraud, it was important, for them to consider “ what the defendant would have had to gain by her destruction, as opposed to what he would have lost by that event, whether it would be be better for him to have the cash from those policies without the obligation to pay the drafts or without their maturing by the arrival of the ship, or was it better for him in his judgment to keep his property and continue his business. If the latter was the case he had no motive to set the ship on fire.. If the former was the case you must find out how much the motive was, what it actually amounted to, and how much it weighed on him in connection with the other facts, in the cáse.

He had raised $5,500 on this vessel and got the money for the drafts. If the vessel did not reach St. Johns, he would owe nothing on these drafts because the condition of the obligation to pay was that she should get to St. Johns.”

This was all that the plaintiff- was entitled to have charged. If the defendant misrepresented the value of the vessel, it was a fraud on those to whom he made the misrepresentations—that is, it was a fraud on the insurance companies from whom he obtained his policies of insurance. But he obtained no policy of insurance from the plaintiff in this action, and he made no representations to the plaintiff,, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff was influenced by any representations, and, therefore, whether they were or were not fraudulent is immaterial.

A witness named Pfaff, was called by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had alleged in its complaint and attempted to show on the trial, that Pfaff had set the boat on fire on the instigation of the defendant. Pfaff declined to tell how the fire arose, for fear that he might criminate himself. He was then asked by the plaintiff’s counsel if he had had any conversation before this time — that is, before the time of the fire — with defendant in regard to setting fire to this vessel,, and the court instructed the witness that if he answered that question he might be obliged to answer the other-question. To this instruction the plaintiff took an exception. '

We do not think that the court erred in informing the witness — which was the substance of the instruction — of his (the witness) rights and obligations ? If we look at the ruling as a ruling not to compel the witness to answer, there was no error committed. The testimony tended to. show that the witness had committed a crime. It was a link in the chain of testimony showing that fact, and he could not be compelled to disclose any portion of the evidence that might help to convict him of an offense.

The appellant sought to offer in evidence a deposition which showed in effect, that on another occassion, this witness had testified to something which was a_ waiver of the privilege which he claimed on this trial. This was objected to as incompetent, the objection was sustained, and the plaintiff excepted.

We think that there was no error in this ruling. The witness had not waived his privilege by testifying on another occasion, nor was what he had testified to on another occasion admissible as evidence on this trial. The testimony given by the witness on the former examination could only be used for the purpose of contradicting the testimony given by him on this examination, or of refreshing his memory, neither of which contingencies existed on this trial. Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 92 N. Y., 287.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed with costs

Dugro. J., concurs.  