The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDA I EVENING, AITGITS7 20, 1845.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.L.LiverpooI, Aug. 18.
(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL and a Special Jury.)
IMPORTANT LIFE INSURANCE CASE.—SCHWABE, ADMINIS-

TRATRIX V. CLIFT.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover a
sum of 999 L, alleged to be due to the plaintiff as adminis- ,
tratrix of the late Mr. Louis Schwabe, of Manchester,
the particulars of whose death werealetailed in the public
prints a few months since. Mr., Schwabe's life had been
insured in the Argus Office. At his death that office
refused to pay the insurance money, upon the gratnd
now pleaded—viz., that the party insured had terminated
his own life by suicide.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL first addressed the jury, and
commenced by observing that, although be appeared
there on the part of the defendants, it would be for him
to state the case in the first instance, as the burden of
proof lay on his side. The death of the person insured
was not denied, and it was admitted that a policy had
been granted; but the company, by their plea, alleged that
the deceased had committed suicide ; therefore they con-
tended that they were not bound to pay the money, there
being in the policy this condition—that the contract was
to become void in case the person whose life was insured
should commit suicide, or die by duelling, or by the
hand of justice. Now, what had occurred in this case
would show that the policy was rendered void accord-
ing to the clause which contained that condition, the
fact being that the deceased had taken poison for the
purpose of putting an end to his life, and that he had
died in consequence within a few hours after. He (the
Solicitor-General) was aware that it was said that Mr.
Schwabe was not of sound mind at the time when he did
the act, and that was commonly said in these unfortu-
nate cases. But if it should be proved that he was not
of sound mind, there would yet be an important ques-
tion of law to be determined, for it would still remain
to be decided, further, whether the life-office ought, on
account of that circumstance, to lose the benefit of the
condition ; and if a doubt could now exist as to this
point in the law of England, it was high time that such
a point should be settled. He apprehended that the
judgment which had been pronounced in a case tried
before Mr. Justice Erskine, in the year 1841, would
apply to the one now before them. In the case to which
he referred, that of Borradaile v. Hunter, a clergyman, had
effected a policy of insurance of a like nature ; and in that
instrument it was conditioned, that if the party should
" die by his own hands," the policy should be void. Mr.
Borradaile afterwards threw himself over Vauxhall
bridge. The policy was sued on. The defendant pleaded
that the insured " died by his own hands." And then
at the trial, it was contended by the plaintiff, that if the de-
ceased were not in a state of mind to render him morally
responsible, the policy was not made void by the act of
self-destruction. The jury, in a special verdict, found
that Mr. Borradaile voluntarily threw himself over the
bridge, knowing that he should thereby destroy his life,
but that at the time of committing the act he was not
capable of distinguishing right from wrong. The
Judges of the Common Pleas held that the case came
within the meaning of the clause, and that the policy
was, therefore, void. Mr. Justice Erskine, Mr. Justice
Maule, and Mr. Justice Coltman, denied that this was
" dying by his own hand," according to the meaning of
the policy. The Lord Chief Justice of that Court, for
whom every one must feel respect, thought that the per-
son so dying must be felo de se to avoid the policy, and
upon the foundation of that opinion, the plaintiff, it was
supposed, now sought to maintain the present action.
The decision in the Common Pleas was, no doubt, a
sound decision. But the jury could have nothing to do
with the expediency of the law ; and if the law. were that
a jury, from feelings of Compassion or sympathy for a dis-
tressed family, might say that a party was not in a sound
state of mind, and could so fix an insurance-office, the
sooner a law of that kind was altered the better. It
would at once be to encourage gross fraud upon the
office insuring, and the offence of self-destruction in the
person insured. But they could have nothing to do
with the question of expediency. They must look to
the words of the policy, and the decision must be ac-
cording to the intention of the parties contracting, and
that intention again to be gathered according to a well-
known rule of law, from the ordinary sense of the words
employed in the contract. What, continued the Learned
Counsel, was the meaning of a man committing " sui-
cide ?" If a man was in such a state of consciousness
that he knew death would be the consequence of his act,
that was enough. He (the Solicitor-General) did not
mean to say that it would be sufficient if the person
acted by mere accident, as if he were to shoot himself
unintentionally. But if they were to hear of a man
having voluntarily shot himself, or taking poison, how
would they describe it but by saying that he had com-
mitted " suicide ?" Here the deceased took sulphuric
acid, and died a few days afterwards in consequence. It
was then the plain meaning of the words, according to
plain natural interpretation, to call this a case of
" suicide ;" and there must have been something else in
the language of the policy to show that the words in ques-
tion should be accepted in any different sense. Were it
not so, it, must happen, by and by, that no similar clause
of exemption in a policy could be effective, for it might
be agreed that, as no man destroying his life can be in
his right mind, no such case of destruction can be one of
suicide. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to
state the facts attending the death of the deceased, which
were afterwards spoken to in detail by the witnesses
called.

The witnesses were Mr. John Chapel, who had been
in the employ of the deceased from 1839 ; Thos. 'White,
a cab-driver ; another man, who had gone to Mr.
Schwabe ; and Mr. Ransom, surgeon, of Manchester, the
medical attendant of Mr. Schwabe. From their evidence
it appeared that the deceased, whcse residence-was at
Plimpton-grove, Manchester, was a native of Germany,
and a silk manufacturer, carrying on his business,
which was in a large way, at some distance from his
dwelling-house. He was a man who paid much atten-
tion to his business, and had greatly excited his mind,
which was of an imaginative turn, in the inventing of
new patterns. There had been five policies effected on
his lire, but so long ago as 1836. In 1843 he was ob-
served to be very much excited, and this being observed
by his medical attendant, that gentleman remonstrated
with him on his too close application to business, and
urged his going to the sea coast for relaxation. He
went, and was partially benefited. But at one period
of 1843 it was deemed necessary to place him under
some personal restraint, and a man was placed in his
house to take care of him. He was very kind and at-
tentive towards his family, and on one occasion, during
the illness of his daughter, had himself watched over her
night and day, exhibiting, as stated by Mr. Ransom,
extraordinary coolness, apparently from the effort which
he made for the sake of his child. On Tuesday, the 7th
of January last, being at his place of business in
Manchester, he spoke with Mr. Chapel about removing
some acids, which were employed in the manufacture
there carried on. The next day the witness observed him
looking at some of the acids in a manlier which attracted
his attention. On the Friday following, the 18th, Mr.
Schwabe came to Mr. Chapel, and asked for some sulphuric
acid, of which about half a wine glass full was given him.
This was put in a phial, which the deceased put in his
pocket. At this time Mr. Chapel remarked something
peculiar in his look. He seemed wild. But the witness
did not apprehend his intention, as he was in the habit
of making experiments, though he was not considered to
be intimately acquainted with the use of those prepara-
tions. It would seem that he must have taken the phial
into a room at the works shortly after having received
the contents, and there swallowed the acid, the empty
bottle being discovered, with the cork, some stains on
the floor, and a portion of the acid apparently vomited
up after being erank off.
The cabman proved that he was beckoned to by de-
ceased in Oxford-street, Manchester, took deceased up,
and observed that he held a handkerchief to his mouth.
On arriving at his residence, whither he desired to be
conveyed, he said something to Mrs. Schwabe, in which
he was understood to say that he had taken poison ; and
on Mr. Ransom being called in, though the deceased
was unable to articulate, he gave that gentleman to
understand that he had taken sulphuric acid. Mr.
Ransom enumerated other acids, appealing to him as a
man of honour to say if he had swallowed any of the
acids mentioned. He shook his head several times, but
finally, when asked if it was sulphuric acid, he nodded
his head, as if to say yes. He lingered until the next
morning, and then died.
Mr. KNOWLES (for the plaintiff) submitted that there
appeared, in the first place, to be some doubt upon the
evidence offered as to whether the poisoning were really
by accident or by design. But it was beyond all doubt,
on the defendant's own showing, that the deceased was
of unsound mind when the acid was swallowed. The
Learned Counsel said he quite agreed with the Solicitor-
General that this was not a case in which they, the jury,
should be governed by their sympathy ; but it was re-
markable that his Learned Friend had relied upon a
case, that of Borradaile v. Hunter, which would be
found quite against him. In that case the words relied
on were " dying by his own hands" but where the words,
as in the present case, were "committing suicide," the
latter phrase must be taken to import a felonious act.
Here the deceased was both morally and legally irre-
sponsible ; and if he had killed another person, he
would, under the circumstances, have been held irre-
sponsible from the existing state of his mind. In the
case quoted Mr. Justice Erskine had expressly
spoken of those policies in which occurred the phrase
"shall commit suicide "—the phrase now occurring in
the present case, and had considered that phrase,
properly understood, and judicially construed, to
import. a criminal act ; and jurors had, accordingly,
so found. Not that the deceased dil not precipitate his
own destruction, but that, being in the state of mind
clearly proved already, he committing
incapable of committin
an act of crime. The jury must excuse him (MI.
Knowles) if he spoke technically, but he must contend
further that the term " commit" did of itself alone imply
the doing of something criminally. It had been proved
that so long ago as 1842 the mind of deceased was in a
very disturbed state, and that his father had died under
circumstances calculated to occasion additional excite-
ment to him, and if there were enough to convince the
jury that he had taken poison, in order to cause his own
death, still no one could for a moment doubt that he was
in such a state of mind at the time as would have pre-
vented him being amenable to the law if ho bad com-
mitted the act against the life of another. After the evi-
dence they (the jury) had heard it would be needless to
call more witnesses to prove the fact that Mr. Schwabe
was insane ; and as to what had been said respecting the
liabilities of insurance-offices, if the gentlemen insuring
found that their meaning, in their words, had been
wrongly understood, only let them, for the future, make
an alteration in the form of their policies.
His LORDSUIP, after recapitulating the facts, as stated
in the evidence, told the jury that it was here alleged,
on th!6 part of the defendant, that the policy
was void, because the deceased had " committed suicide."
To make that out they must find—first, that Mr.
Schwabe died by his own voluntary act ; and, secondly,
that at the time he did the act, he could tell right from
wrong, so as to be a responsible moral agent, and to be
capable of appreciating the quality of his action. His
Lordship observed that he stated this distinctly, antici-

pating that his judgment might be disputed. He should
feel himself ruled by the judgment of the courts above,
but, in the case quoted, two of the Learned Judges out
of the four had considered the case of " suicide," though
the two others had not ; in that case the words, " dying
by his own act," were of different meaning from those
here discussed, and no doubt if the language in that case
had been the same as in this, the decision would have been
in favour of the plaintiff. The Lord Chief Justice had
said, in " Borradaile v. Hunter," that " suicide" must
mean a "felonious suicide." His own opinion was,
that the party must have been a moral agent at the
time, in order to make the policy void. It had been
argued, that a decision in the plaintiff's favour would
give encouragement to suicide, if provision could in this
way be insured to a family ; but no other evidence at
all had been given as to the circumstances of Mr.
Schwabe, nor as to whether the family would be bene•
fited by a verdict for the plaintiff,
Upon his Lordship's concluding his direction to
the jury,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose and tendered his Lord-
ship a bill of exceptions.
The Learned JUDGE perused it, and then said that the
words which it attributed to him were not correct.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then said that he was de-
sirous of having them correctly put down, and would
endeavour to quote what his Lordship had said with
exactness. _ _ _ _ _

His LORDSHIP then said that his ruling was that the
jury, to find for the defendant, must find that the de-
ceased was in a state of mind to be capable of distinguish-
ing right from wrong. At the same time, although the
burden of proof was upon the defendant, as to the fact
of the party having voluntarily taken away his own life,
the jury must assume that the deceased was a capable
moral agent, unless the plaintiff proved the contrary.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

THE PAS DE DEUX!—James Ackland, aged 39, a
labourer, was indicted for an assault, &c., on the person
of Sarah Collins, at Isleworth.

Mr. Bailantine was retained for the prisoner.
The fair prosecutrix having stated her " moving
story," was cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE.
You are a dancer, I believe, in a travelling theatre?—
Yes. .
And do the Highland fling in character?—No, I don't;
I dances the pas de deux.—(Great laughter.)
Oh, we are coming to that.—(Continued laughter.)
You do exhibit outside' the booth for the purpose of
" taking strangers in," and then you show off the second
time, don't you? —Pr'aps I may.—(Laughter.)
Well, what did you when you found the prisoner be-
side you ?—I wakened my companion.
Oh, who is she 7—The singer of our company.'

And her name ?—Eliza Campbell.
What did the prisoner do ?—He left the room and re-
turned with tea.—(Great laughter.)
The witness was cross-examined at great length, to
show that she had, some time after the alleged assault
had been committed, been sitting on the prisoner's knee
and drinking in the parlour.
Miss Campbell was called to corroborate the evidence.
After an amusingly clever speech from Mr. BAL-
LANTINE,
Thomas Henderson, landlord of the lodging-house,
was called. _ .

Mr. BALLANTINE—Did you see the prisoner in com-
pany with the prosecutor in your house on the evening
previous to this transaction-?—Yes, she was showing
her steps.—(Great laughter.)
In what way ?—Oh, she threw her legs about, same
as in the theatre. _

Was she a sylph at the time ?—No ; she were my
lodger.—(Continued laughter.)
Did you see them together next morning ?—Yes ;
a-sitting on his lap in the front parlour, and a-kissing of
him.— (Roars of laughter.)
Another witness was examined, who fully bore out
this evidence.

The Learned COMMON SERGEANT summed up with
his characteristic brevity—" Gentlemen of the jury,
you understand these things better than I do—(Laugh-
ter)—l leave the case in your hands."
The prisoner was at once acquitted.
John Hutchinson, 25, cabinet-maker, was indicted for
stealing a writing-desk, a number of silver spoons, and
other articles, the property of James Lombard.
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
The prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy,
and in answer to questions put to him by the Court, he
stated that the prisoner obtained admission to his house
as a suitor to his daughter, and he took advantage of the
opportunity thus afforded him to remove the property in
question, which was, however, restored the next day.
The prisoner was sentenced to one year's imprison-
ment and hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Yesterday Henry Richardson and Peter llPShane, who
were both dressed in seamen's clothes, were brought
before the Lord Itayor, charged with baying committed
a fraud. _ _

Catherine Cafe, one of the servants at the Shades
Tavern, in Mark-lane, stated that the prisoners called a
few days ago, and producing a dress, said it was a con-
traband article, and that it was worth 51. in the foreign
country from which it had been conveyed. The witness
gave them a pound for the dress, and was told by them
that it consisted of 14 yards, at the same time that they
advised her to put it by at once for fear of accidents and
without measuring it. She accordingly laid it aside, and
after the men had gone opened and measured it, and
instead of finding that she was possessed of 14 yards,
ascertained that she had no more than six. Yesterday
they called again calculating, no doubt, that the transac-
tion was forgotten, and exhibited a shawl which witness
consented to take, but when she got it into her posses-
sion she determined to keep it if the fellows refused to
return her sovereign to her and take back her dress.
They endeavoured to prevail upon her to restore the shawl,
but she persevered, notwithstanding their annoying soli-
citations, and they were at last placed under the care of
a policeman.
The LORD MAYOR said that the defendants had made
themselves liable to heavy penalties for having sold what
they called contraband goods.
One of the defendants said that the dress was well
worth the pound, and that he had himself purchased it
at a first-rate house for the sum of 16s. 6d.
The LORD MAYOR said the defendants had got them-
selves into a much greater hobble than they supposed,
and that he should remand them and represent the case
to the officer of the Customs who would no doubt put
their responsibility to the test.
The defendants hoped that his Lordship would blend
a little mercy with justice in the case. They declared
that they never had passed off the goods as foreign and
that the dress was purely English.
The LORD MAYOR informed the defendants that they
should have a full measure of justice and that there
existed no doubt of the intention to defraud.

The defendants hoped at all events that his Lordship
would accept of bail for their appearance as they would
be greatly inconvenienced by a visit to the Compter.
The LORD MAYOR refused to take bail and remanded
the defendants until this day, when the Custom-house
officers will be in attendance.

Michael Murphy was charged with having threatened
to do some desperate mischief to Mrs. Reeny, the land •
lady of a public-house in Petticoat-lane. The poor
woman had been some time ago blown up by a gas ex-
plosion which took place in her parlour, caused by the
mischievous pranks of some evil-minded ruffians in the
neighbourhood. In consequence of the prosecution of
two persons who were believed to be the planners of
the explosion, Mrs. Reeny had been subjected to great
annoyance from the low Irish, and the defendant had
been particularly offensive in his language and conduct.
The LORD MAYOR ordered the defendant to pay forty
shillings for having maliciously broken a glass in the
house, and said that he must find good bail to the
amount of 401. to keep the peace for six month%
A boy named Owen Keefe was charged with having
stolen a quantity of ice. It appears that there is a ready
sale for ice in the neighbourhood of Billingsgate-market,
the article having got into almost universal use in the
City, and the prisoner was seen helping himself to a
basket of it. lie was sent to prison for a month.

well dressed, was charged with being concerned in rob-
bing Mr. Jeffries, of the Prince of Wales, Sudeley-street,
Islington, of 641. in gold and silver money.
On the 19th ult., about the middle of the day, a de-
cently-dressed man walked into the parlour of the Prince
of Wales, and called for a glass of ale and the news-
paper, with both of which he was served. In a few
minutes after, the prisoner and another smartly-dressed
man walked in and called for a pint of porter at the
bar. One of them immediately said that he wished to
see the newspaper, whereupon Mrs. Pearson, the land-
lady, said a gentleman was reading it in the parlour, and
that they might ask him for it. They declined, saying
they did not like to ask, but if the landlady would
have the kindness to do so they would feel obliged.
The landlady went in as requested, but she had hardly
got into the parlour, when the door was closed, and
when she attempted to get out it was held fast on the
outside. After a short time the grasp was relaxed, and
incensed at having been so treated, she upbraided the
prisoners with their misconduct. When she came out
they were near the door, and in reply to her accusation,
laughed, and without waiting to look at the newspaper,
walked out. They had scarcely left the place, when the
landlady missed from the shelf behind the bar the tin
box which stood there. She immediately went to the
door and raised the cry of stop thief. The prisoner and
his companion, who had the cash-box under his arm,
were hotly pursued by a mob, and the man with the
cash baffled his pursuers, but the prisoner ran into a
fruit-shop near Sadler's Wells Theatre, and attempted
to hide himself behind the counter, but -wax soon after
apprehended.—Remanded.
Q UEEN- SQUAR E.
Mr. T. Couchman, the proprietor of the Winds )r
Castle, Vauxhall-bridge-road, was charged on a sum-
mons with assaulting his potman, John Webber.
It appeared from complainant's statement, that on the
evening of Monday week Mrs. Couchman de.4red him
to take some beer to a customer, when he refused to do
so, alleging that it was not on his round, and that he
could not be in two places at once. His mistret.s ob-
served, that if he would not take it she must get some
one else who would, when he replied that he would take
out no more beer for her at all, and positively refused to
go with the supper beer to those customers whom he
had been in the habit of supplying. Mrs. Couchman
then called her husband, who immediately collared and
struck him, insisting on his taking the beer or leaving
the house. Complainant had occasion to go into the
tap-room, when his master followed him, dragged him
out, and struck him repeatedly, and attempted to throw
him out of the house.

In answer to an inquiry from the magistrate, corn
plainant admitted that he was under the influence of
liquor at the time, but considered that he was sober
enough to do his work.
Mr. Couchman put some questions to complainant, by
which it was clearly shown that he had a very excellent
situation, and was treated with liberality and kindness,
and that it was his duty to carry out beer and make
himself generally useful.
Two coalheavers were called as witnesses to prove the
assault.

Mr. Couchmau's answer to the case was, that com-
plainant refused to take the supper beer to customers
who were waiting for it, and made use of a filthy ex-
pression to his mistress. Hearing a noise, he (Mr.
Couch man) came out of the parlour, and upon defendant,
who was drunk, making use of blackguard and insulting
language to him, and repeating his refusal to supply the
customers, he desired h►m to leave the house, which
complainant positively refused to do, and immediately
seized him (defendant) by the collar, and swore he
would stick to him like a leech. He repeatedly told
complainant to let go, and on his refusal to do so, which
was accompanied by bad language, he certainly struck
him, and endeavoured to put hire out.
Witnesses having been called in support of the defence,
Mr. BOND expressed his opinion that a drunken
servant was of very little service to a master, and con-
sidering that the defendant was perfectly justified, in
consequence of the misconduct of the complainant, in
putting him out of the house, would not inflict any
penalty on the master, but as he had used more violence
than was absolutely necessary to eject him, called upon
the defendant to pay two shillings, the costs of the
summons. _ _

....
Elizabeth Fletcher, a powerful woman, was charged
with assaulting William Hawes, a Norwich constable, in
the execution of his duty.
Complainant, who was in search of a man named An-
derson, for felony, was standing opposite defenlant's
house, in Causton-street, Westminster, on Saturday even-
ing, when she came out and wanted to know what he
and two other constables, who accompanied him, were
watching her house for, and said if they wanted Ander-
son, they must go and find him. Complainant replied,
he should go and find him in her_house, and, having en-
tered it, showed her a warrant for his apprehension, and
took a candle in order to go up stairs. Defendant im-
mediately blew out the light, and on the offiners attempt-
ing to go up stairs, obstructed their progress. On ar•
riving at a room on the first floor she stood with her back
to the door, and swore that they should not go in there,
and the officers found it necessary to hold her. She,
however, broke away from them, and struck the com-
plainant a desperate blow in the eye. The door of the
room was found open, and Anderson's wife was found
there ; but it was supposed, in consequence of the delay
they had met with, that he had escaped by the window.
Defendant denied the assault, and alleged that she had
been roughly used by the officers, who did not show any
authority, as she declared, for entering her house.
It having been stated that her husband was a very
quiet, hard-working, respectable man,
Mr. BOND, in consideration that the penalty would fall
upon her husband, after admonishing her in very strong
terms, fined her 34 orin default, six weeks' imprisonment.

Henry) thought it was a case in which the parish should
prosecute for perjury.
The clerk to the guardians replied that ,there were no
funds in the parish to defray the expenses of such a
prosecution.

- Mr. HENRY observed that this was the answer he in -
variably received in cases where he recommended a
prosecution, and where a prosecution should take place.
In his opinion, in a case like the present, the expenses
of a prosecution should be allowed in the passing of the
accounts.—Here the matter dropped.
John Fitzgerald was summoned by the Animals' Friend
Society, of 18, Strand, for wilfully shooting a cat, the
property of Mrs. Fitzgerald.
Mr. HENRY remarked, that people were not allowed
to take the law into their hands entirely ; if they do,
they must run the consequences. The defendant was
ordered to pay los. the value of the cat, and 2s. summons.