The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-02-14 00:00:00

ACTION AGAINST AN INSURANCE
COMYANY.

- - -- -- - - -
In the Court of Common Pleas, the canse of "Macdonald
v the Law tit-ion Etre aud Lila Insurance Comp .ny " has
been heard, and was an action to recover an arruunt on a
policy of insurance for El,OOO, effected upon tn.; llfe of
Mrs. Catherine Ma.llll Taylor.
Inter aria the defendants pleaded that the plaint:if was
never intarestej in the Me of the person assured, and that
there was fraud in statements made as to the general health
and temperate habits of the deceased.
Mr. J. J. Powell, (2 C., and Mr Barnard wore Ycnnsal
for the plaintiff ; thr John B. li %Make, lt C., and Mr. ,
Patheram for the defenthmta
The plaintiff is the son of a gentleman who was .
formerly vicar of Newbury, in Berkshire, and in that
pariah there resided a Mrs. Mason Taylor, the widow
' of a larmer, and between plaintiff and Mrs. Taylor
, communications passed and intertiews took place
which risulted in an offer of marriage to her. The
plaintiff consulted his brother, who is an attorney, on
the subj,ct, and after come time it was considered d-
sirable that tie pl.intiff oh Add insure Mrs. Tay 1,-I'-
1 life for £2,000. The parties met at tha defervianta'
office in Cnancery-lane, when Mrs. Taylor was exa-
mined by Mr. liandoock and Dr. gag; who

, recommended that the society should take the
I life upon ten years being added to it. The de-
' fendant.,_ however, wished to have seventeen
years added te the life, and subsequently the in-
eurance was reduced to £l,OOO, on which the nem-
gory payments were med., end the policy was duly
elf eckd. The plaintiff awl 3.lra Tridlor were to be
married on, the 21at May, 1872, but the nuitiels were
afterwards p etponed to the 24th June following, but
in the meantime the lady died and the company re-
fused to pay anything on the policy of insurance dn
the ground of the suppression of material facts with
reference to pr Tonle made by the deceased (Mrs.
Taylor) to other insurance Mimes who dedined to
accept her. The learned counsel (Mr. Powell) aftvr
narrating the &taih of the case, submitted that the
facts for the determination of the jury hi point of law
wre—was this a bona fi4e representation by the plain-
tiff to the eheemiant. ; chit the defendants uuderst‘dad
well and thoroughly wh4 they were doicg at the
time; and were they Meled at all by any minepre-
sentation or fraud or concealment on the part of the
plaintiff?
The plaintiff in the aation was then examined by
Mr. Barnard. lie aid he reeided in St. Mary's-square.
Paddington, and was the youneer son of the former
vicar of a country living. In the summer, of 1871 he
made the acquaintance xf Mrs. raylor, who was then
a widow, living at Goring, in Oxfordshire, and about
the Christmas of that year he paid her a virir, and
their acquaintance ultimately resulted in his u,aking
her an Eger of murirtge, which was accepted.
Afterwards he determined to effect an irorurimas
upon the life of Mrs. Taylor, and sedurdingly
on the 6th of Martin he sent in a proposal to
the defendant's company in Chaccery-lane. The
amount of the insurance was subse juently reduced
from £2,000 to £l,OOO, and the policy sO insurance was
effected on the 9h id April. The day of the marriage
between them had been fixed for the 21st of M.y, but
it was afterwards postponed to the 24th of June, on
the ground that the plaintiff's pecuniary affairs were
not settled and that Mrs. Taylor had not left her eesi-
deuce. Mrs. Taylor dicd on the 161 or 17th of June
following. _

In trusertamination by Sir John Karslake, the
witness said this; he had always been on good terms
with Ls father, whose hou4e he had left about tw.nty
years previously, but he nerd to visit him occasionally.
Since then he had been partly engaged in tultion and
partly in a ilea and dumb iurtitution. He was ab ut
43 years of age. He never knew that there wee any-
thing very serious the matter with her alth.
Mr. James William Me the brother of the
plaintiff, stated that £4OO life estate was all the pro.
perty, tie believed, that the deceased lady bail.
Mr. Henry Gray Taylor, a solicitor; who occasion-
ally transacted some legal busin•as for the late Mn..
Taylor, deposed that from he inquaintance with her
he did rot believe she was given to intemperate habitr.

Mr, William Sutton, an actuary, estimated the value
of the life of a lady aged 49 years, possiasing £lOO for
her life, as tieing worth 1:6,000.
Sir John Kieslake t but if she came and told you
that she WAS in a dying state, winit would you think
her life worth then

The witness immediately answered.—Nothing.
(Laughter.)
The Rev. \V. 11. Stokes, vicar of Goring, knew the
deceased lady as one of his parishioners for many years
anq he never knew or heard that she was a person
given to intoxica.ion.
_ .

In answer Sir John, the rev, witness stated that
the station-mester, Mr. Tryer, at Goring, occasionally
visited the sick, but he cbd not know that he combined
the duties of a quasi-medical roan with those of his
profession, or that be saw Mrs. Taylor at any time in
the atter capacity.
This being the case for the plaintiff,
Sir J. B. Kerslake tten addressed the jury for the
defence, in the outset of whizh he said that Mrs.
Taylor had in 1871 and for a considerable period
previously, been suffering at intervals iron the most
frightful spasms produced by gall moues, which
ultimately produced her death in June, 1872—not fewer
that 42 of these being found impactedin the peritoneum
at the time named. In 1869 she applied to the Scottish
Equitable Company to effect an insurance upon her
life; but in consequence of answers given by her as to
the antecedent health of several members of Per own
who she candidly stated had died- from
consumption, the was rejected an an ineligible life ;
and the same result followed on an application for a
simillar purpoee to the S.:otlish lint :II Insurance
Society. He would be able to prove from the evi-
dence which he should call before them that two of her
brothers bad died from consumption, and that she her-
self Was suff-ring from a serious internal malady, of
which she finally died, and which she concealed,
from the defeudaots and the eminent niedicsi gentle-
men who etsmined her on belied of the Law Insurance
Society.

The learned counsel then called medical evidence in
support of hi case for the defendants.

Mr. Harry Hatadmck, a weffiknown surgeon, and
for some time medical examiner of the defendants'
office, gave, in examination by the leading counsel for
the defence, an outline of the interview which took
place between himself and Mrs. Taylor when she came
to insure her life wi'.h this company.
The learned Judge said that the crucial question in
the case was how far the plaintiff was quite ignorant
or innocent of any responsibility for answers given by
Mrs. Taylor in reply to the medical examiners, and
which the defendants now alleged were fradulent and
untruthful.
The hearing of the case occupied two days, and in
the result the jury virtually found a verdict for the
plaintiff, as they answered certain interrogatories put by
the learned judge acquitting the plaintiff of fraud and
any knowledge of the deceased's ailments. Leave was
given to the other side to move for a new trial.