The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-12-13 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES.---LIVERPOOL, SAT U RDAY

must ever remain so, until the leading Powers of
the world coalesce, to put down all. those abomi-
nations which now disgrace our race, instead of

uniting their voices to secure for the slaver and

piratical partizan, the utmost protection afforded
to lawful commerce.

♦-

THE Liverpool Courier gives "another warning
to dishonest Assurers. This case," says our
sagacious cotemporary, " was precisely similar
in its bearing to the notorious one of LAURIE
V. THE MERCHANT'S AND TRA DESMAN'S MUTUAL
LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, tried at the last Liver-
pool Assizes, and frequently referred to in these
columns. The recent decision, therefore, is an-
other proof that our remarks on honeSt and dis-
honest assurers are confirmed by the highest
possible authority in the country." The G amp
family are profound dreamers. Where others
are satisfied with a nod, a wink, or a generous
yawn, they fall into a deep sleep, snore, and
suffer all the agonies of nightmare. That the
whole of a numerous family should be so afflicted,
is really very lamentable ; for, in the recital of
what they hear and see in their somnolency, fre-
quently deceives the less drowsy portions of
mankind. For example, the Courier tells us
that " an important case to the assurance world
was tried at the Court Gf Queen's Bench, on
Saturday, before Chief Justice CAMPBELL. It
was that of GOSLING AND OTHERS, executors, v-
THE NEW NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY. The
widow and children of GEORGE GOSLING, Corn
Factor, at Reading, tiec eased, as plaintiffs, sued
the defendants for payment of a life policy for
6001., effected by deceased, with:the-company in
question. The deceased died about twelve
months after the granting of the policy. The
claim was resisted on the ground of fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment, it having
turned out that GOSLING was a man of intemperate
habits, whereas he was represented to be quite the re-
verse. The jury gave an immediate verdict for the
defendants." We have given in italics that sen-
tence in the Com ier's statement, which proves
most incontestibly that there is no analogy be-
tween the cases of GOSLING V. THE NEW NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, and LAURIE V. THE MER_
CHANT'S AND TRADESMAN'S MUTUAL LIFF ASSUR.
ANCE SOCIETY.

In GOSLING'S case it is alleged that " lie was a
man of intemperate habits, whereas Ire was repre_
sented to be quite the reverse." Here, it must
be observed, that the life actually insured is
assailed, and not the health of the GOSLING
family. In Mr. THOMAS LAURIE'S case the life
of the insured is not disputed. The " Merchant's
and Tradesman's Office" admit all Mr. LAURIE
has said of his own health and habits to be true.
The Merchant's Office resist the payment of
500/. insured on certain representations with
regard to the health of Mr. LAURIE'S family, made
in the handwriting of their agent—Mr. ROBERT
WEBSTER. Where then is there a shadow of
resemblance between the two cases which the
Courier has the cool temerity to say are " pre-
cisely similar ?" It may suit the purpose of
those who have " concealed " intemperance to
complain of, to use the columns of a newspaper
to deter the representatives of insured persons
from seeking to rPenver the arronunt of their
policies; but the public must not allow them-
selves to be misled by the wily ways of Assur-
ance diplomates. But to return to Mr. Gos-
LING, of Reading. If that gentleman was an
intemperate man—an habitual drunkard—one-
half of Reading must have known it ; and, by
an Insurance Company's using the ordinary
amount of caution employed by bankers, mer-
chants, and tradesmen, the dangers to the ,
assurers of concealment and misrepresentation
of an outward and visible risk, might have been
avoided. The agents of. Insurance Offices in our
large towns can find out, during the life-time of
those they insure, everything concerning them.
If the friends of intemperate men will not give
the information, there is no lack of maw-worms,
busy-bodies, and harpies, to tell all they know,
think, see, and have heard people say, for
generations back.
In this universal arrangement of friendship
and enmity—manly disregard concerning the
business of others, and insatiable love of med-
dling in the affairs of one's neighbours, the re-
presentative of an insurance office need never be
at a loss how to get at the truth, before he sub-
mits a proposal to his principals. If he has a
doubt respecting a marriage, birth, or death, he
can demand proper certificates. It might so
happen, that the latter of these very important
documents might be supplied by a professional
insurance medical referee, in a large way of busi-
ness, and this might be open to many grave
objections on a close investigation in some in-
stances ; still, all the legal evidence required on
these points may be obtained, and, with all the
gates to truth thrown open to Assurance Com-
panies, before a -proposal is_ accepted, and prior
to the issuing of a policy,we deny their right to
dispute their contracts, which have been ren-
dered void, by bringing to light the laches of
their responsible officers, or some unusual inter-
lining of a proposal, such as Mr. ROBERT WEB-
STER took upon himself, as shown on the trial
of LAURIE V. THE MERCHANTS' AND TRADES-
MAN'S MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY. The
juries throughout the country seem to have
overlooked the fact, that Assurance Companies
can guard themselves, by the exercise of com-
monplace discretion, against fraudulent proposals;
and that they have abundant time to enquire, in
the lifetime of the insured, into whatever may be
considered false in the specification on which
their contracts are based. W fiere this has been
done, there can be no cause of action shown
and where it has been proved, that an Assurance
Company have not done their duty towards
themselves, during the life of their customers,
they are not entitled to a verdict which may
bring ruin on an insured's widow and orphans,
by involving them, in the costs of a trial, to re-
cover the sum guaranteed.
Lawyers may take a different view of this

n what

subject ; but ever
Will, we think, Si(

he community

>ther class

- , we believe
to be a simple common sense solution of the

offices re-

question. The great majority 01 t
cently established, repudiate the principle
indisputability ; and, strange to say, that these

very societies are the chief disputants in our

courts of law.

And this is certainly one of the

:rease