The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-10 00:00:00

DESSOROUGII V. RAWLINS.

The arguments in this case were resumed and concluded to-day. The
bill was filed by the Atlas Insurance Company against the Directors of
the Eagle Insurance Company, to obtain a declaration of the Court that
a policy of insurance for 4,000/., effected on the life of a Mr. John
Cochrane, deceased, was fraudulent, and therefore void. Messrs.
Beetham, the Solicitors of the Eagle Insurance Company, were made
defendants to the bill, which charged, that the Eagle Insurance Company
having advanced to Mr. Cochrane the sum of 12,9991. were anxious
to secure themselves against any probable loss of the money,
and that they for that purpose attempted to effect insurances
on the life of Mr. Cochrane, with various offices ; that they tried
to effect an insurance with the Economic Insurance Company, but
failed; but that they succeeded with the Atlas Company, beca.ise that
Company, relying on the representations of the Eagle Company, had not
made such strict inquiry as they otherwise would have done, into the
health of Mr. Cochrane. The bill further alleged that Mr. Cochrane,
in September, 1834, when the insurance was effected on his life, was
not in a state of health to render his life insurable, as he was at that
time labouring under an incurable complaint ; that the defendants
knew this; and that two days before they completed the insurance with
the Atlas-office, the Actuary of the Economic had called on the
Actuary of the Eagle Company, and refused to insure Mr.
Cochrane's life, showing him at the same time a letter from
Dr. Travers, on which it was stated that Mr. Cochrane was in a bad
state of health. As this meeting between the actuaries, Mr. F. Bee-
tham, the solicitor of the Eagle Company, was admitted to be present,
and, on interrogations being exhibited to him with reference to what'
then took place, he refused to answer upon the ground of the commu-
nications being privileged, as he was present in his character of legal
adviser of the Company. The plaintiffs objected to this answer as in-
sufficient, and the Master reported that it was so. Exceptions were
taken to the report, and upon those exceptions coming before the pre-
sent Master of the Rolls, his Lordship, considering the answer suffi-
cient, allowed the exceptions, and from that decision the present action
was brought.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR was clearly of opinion that the answer was
insufficient, and overruled the decision of the Court below.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DENMAN and a Common Jury.)

MYER 3 V. REYZER.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 311., being the
amount of an account furnished for medicine and medical attendance
supplied to the defendant and his family. The defence was a set-off for
rent due by the plaintiff to the defendant.
A young man, the brother-in-law of the plaintiff, who acted also as
his assistant, was examined as to the various items of the amount, but
his testimony with respect to dates was so contradictory and unintelli-
gible, that Mr. PLATT, who appeared for the plaintiff, admitted that he
could not make out his case. The matter was subsequently referred to
arbitration.