Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Con- 271 clusions of Law 29. That plaintiff, pursuant to notice, defendants' exhibit B, appeared for examination on July 17th, 1931, on July 27th, 1931, and on August 10th, 1931, but unreasonably failed and refused to continue the said examination. Refused—C. C. L., J. S. C. 30. That the plaintiff by its officers failed and refused to submit to the examinations reasonably required by the defendants pursuant to the terms and conditions of the said "policies in suit.” Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. 272 31. That the plaintiff by its officers appeared for examination under oath, but in said examination wilfully declined and refused to answer material, relevant, pertinent, and proper questions. Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. 32. That the plaintiff by its officers after first having been duly sworn upon said examination as set forth in finding 29 herein, testified that on the 17th day of April, 1931, the actual cash value and sound value of all of the personal property in the “proofs of loss” set forth and insured under the “policies in suit” was the sum of $88,616.13. Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. 273 33. That the plaintiff's testimony upon the said examination under oath as set forth in finding 32, that the actual cash value and sound value of all of the personal property in said "proofs of loss” set forth and insured under the “policies in suit” was the sum of $88,616.13 was false. Refused—C. C. L., J. S. C. 274 Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Con clusions of Law 34. That the plaintiff's testimony upon the said examination under oath as set forth in finding 32, that the actual cash value and sound value of all of the personal property in said “proofs of loss” set forth and insured under the “policies in suit” was the sum of $88,616.13 was false and known to be false to the plaintiff when given and given with the intention and purpose of deceiving and defrauding each of the defendants and of inducing each of the defendants to pay to the insured the plaintiff herein, a greater sum than each of the defendants was liable for, in that the actual cash value and sound value of said personal property on the 17th day of April, 1931, at least insofar as items 1 to 702 inclusive are concerned, was less than the sum of $39,000.00. Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. 275 35. That the plaintiff by its officers, after first having been duly sworn upon said examination set forth in finding 29 herein, further testified that the actual loss and damage by reason of the 276 fire of April 17th, 1931, to the personal property in said “proofs of loss” set forth and insured under the “policies in suit” was the sum of $49,287.15. Refused—C. C. L., J. S. C. 36. That the plaintiff's testimony given upon the said examination under oath as set forth in finding 35 herein, that the actual loss and damage by reason of the fire of April 17th, 1931, to the personal property in said "proofs of loss” set forth and insured under the “policies in suit” was the sum of $19,287.15, was false. Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Con- 277 clusions of Law 37. That the plaintiff's testimony given upon the said examination under oath as set forth in finding 35 herein, that the actual loss and damage by reason of the fire of April 17th, 1931, to the personal property in said "proofs of loss” set forth and insured under the “policies in suit” was the sum of $49,287.15, was false and known to be false to the plaintiff when given, and given with the intention and purpose of deceiving and defrauding each of the defendants and of inducing each of the defendants to pay to the insured, the plaintiff herein, a greater sum than each of the defendants was liable for, in that the actual loss and damage to said personal property on the 17th day of April, 1931, at least insofar as items 1 to 702 inclusive are concerned, was less than the sum of $9,200.00. Refused—C. C. L., J. S. C. 278 38. That upon said examination under oath set forth in finding 29 herein, the plaintiff by its officers further testified concerning the truth and accuracy of certain books of account, produced by 279 or referred to by the plaintiff at the said examination under oath. Refused—C. C. L., J. S. C. 39. That the testimony of the plaintiff set forth in finding 38 herein was false and untrue and known to the plaintiff to be false and untrue when given, and given by the plaintiff through its officers for the purpose and intention of deceiving and defrauding the defendants and each of them. Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. 280 Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Con clusions of Laro 40. That upon said examination under oath set forth in finding 29 herein, the plaintiff by its officers testified with regard to other material facts and circumstances. Refused—C. C. L., J. S. C. 41. That the testimony of the plaintiff set forth in finding 40 was false and untrue and known to the plaintiff to be false and untrue when given and given by the plaintiff through its officers for the purpose and intention of deceiving and defrauding the defendants and each of them. Refused—C. C. L., J. S. C. 281 42. That prior to the fire of June 17th, 1931, and in or about the month of June, 1930, a fire occurred at the premises 138 Fifth Avenue, New York City. Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. 42a. That as a result of the said fire certain personal property of the plaintiff contained in the said premises was damaged. Refused–C. C. L., J. S. C. 282 43. That in connection with the said fire of June, 1930, the plaintiff endeavored to collect from certain fire insurance companies then insuring the said property the sum of about $30,000.00 as and for its alleged loss and damage. Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. 41. That the plaintiff settled the claim referred to in finding 43 for the sum of $8,500.00. Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Con- 283 clusions of Law 45. That at least 50 items of those included in the "proofs of loss in suit” were in the premises of the plaintiff at 138 Fifth Avenue, New York City, at the time of the fire of June, 1930. Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. 281 46. That at divers reasonable times after the rendering of the “proofs of loss” the defendants reasonably required the plaintiff to produce for examination all plaintiff's books of account, bills, invoices and other vouchers (or certified copies thereof if the originals be lost) at certain reasonable times and places designated by the defendants. Refused-C. C. L., J. S. C. 47. That the plaintiff "failed and refused to produce for examination all of its books of account, bills, invoices, vouchers, and other data demanded by the defendants to be produced as set forth in finding 46 herein. Refused—C, C. L., J. S. C. 285 48. That each of the said "policies in suit” among other things, provided as follows: At lines numbered 159 to 175 inclusive: "In case the insured and this Company shall fail to agree as to the amount of loss or damage, each shall, on the written demand of either, select a competent and disinterested appraiser. The appraisers shall first select a competent and disinterested |