Report 104c

REPORT 104C WRITTEN BY ((idfk somebody))

Report on a recent incident, wherein a blaze was brought before court.

A fire had done damage to an inn, damaging its upper floor dining and drinks area to a limited extent; it provided the owner assistive insurance (some % of the repair cost, in this case 41.7%, or 5 twelfths), but not full compensatory insurance (>100% of the repair cost). The owner of the inn, seeking to get the full extent of the damage covered, decided to take whoever had caused the fire to court. There were no defendants at the time, so this would have had to be the fire itself, and the case would be dismissed. However, a neighbour still possessed a lamp lit by the blaze. The fire itself would be ineligible as a defendant by default, but due to a lapse in ownership and inheritance laws, the neighbour was able to make the fire (and lamp) their legal heir before the court case was opened. This would then mean responsibility could be passed on to the fire after all, and the court case would resume; and as we later learned, the neighbour conspired with the inn owner in an attempt at fraud, meaning this very much happened as well. Neither were initially suspected of fraud, as people with nonhumans as their perfectly legitimate, non-fraud-related heirs also existed as a product of the same inheritance law loophole.

The neighbour, now guardian of the remainder of the fire, and the inn owner conspiring together were hoping that the fire would be ruled impoverished, and placed in whatever institution the court felt like while the compensation would be covered by the state as per standard procedure. This plan misfired (heh), however, as the neighbour owning the lamp decided they would be representing the understandably noncommunicative fire in court as whānau (≈family), because they lacked the qualifications needed to represent it as a lawyer instead. Thus, they had inadvertently taken on the financial burden themselves, and the compensation would have to be paid by the neighbour, netting their conspiracy less money than they started with (neighbour pays compensation plus court fees; the conspirators have the compensation at net gain zero, but lose the court fees).

The attempt at fraud was revealed only once the sheer abnormality of the case caused a state investigation into the neighbour's family ties to check that the fire-and-lamp was indeed an heir. Public opinion played a large role in this, people were understandably skeptical of a literal fire sitting in a courtroom as defendant. The recency of the neighbour adopting the fire meant the investigation was broadened, and then found exceptional circumstances in that the neighbour was in fact a distant elder of the inn owner. This led to further investigation into their relationship, which then led to the revelation of their fraud attempt and a successful state persecution of them both. This then meant the compensation, as well as much of the conspirators' other property, was seized by the state; so instead of getting away with failed fraud and having lost only court fees, they altogether lost Quite The Sum as well as the damaged inn, and also the neighbour's authority to care for the fire-and-lamp. The fire was transferred to state custody, interestingly enough, and continued to be taken care of at the local courthouse, as a novelty and in case the neighbour would like it back at a later date when they had cleared their record. (The courthouse staff were not obligated to do this, but did so anyway; officially, in case the neighbour was actually attached to the fire independent of having attempted to commit fraud with it).

No laws were amended as a result of this case.

(DATE OF WRITING)