The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1864-02-28
The Life Insurance Case.
CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL--rHB COMPLAINT DIS.
MISSED, ETC.
IssV"
BEFORE Judge Moucrief.

srrERioR coURI-rRIAL Term.
BEFORE Judge MoncricE
FxB 2y.-eldrles Ra,nFs vs n: Mutual Benefit Life
Innudnce C6mp1sy.--rhs case, which has created
to-day after occupying the attention o tho Court Ave
cover $4,000 for which the life Of his brother Leo
pold Raeaftie insured tho once OF this defeedauts
Tue defence 81 up that there fraud In the
tracts that tho deceased was sick with consumption
the time the policy issued, and thst he had been
by other companies before and after the defend
ants took tho risk large number OF witnesses
examined each side. and the testim'ny was exceed
ngy interesting, not only to those interested In iusur
ance matters but to medical and the public gerer
ally. Thestestimony on each side having been ex.
hausted-
should dismiss the complaint without allowing IL to 60 to
Jury the ground that hcre had been breach OF the
contract on the part Of the insured be having asey
stated that had boon rejected BY any other
pany, when theDfact that tn, British Commercial
ie Insurance Company had rejected his application about
SIX months previously The counsel cited several autho
rites support OF his motion and maintaining that tho
question solely for the consideration Of the Court,
urged dismissal Of the complaint.
Judge Moncricff there Is dispute about the testi
cny on this point and there does noe appear 70 Do any
Jury would ike 70 boar what the counsel for the plain.
tin has 70 say In regard to the motion.
Counsel for the psiatin-lt Il question Tor the
tho reecton OF deceased by tho British Commercial Life
Insurance Company Is worthy OF full credit The rejection
not made BY the company but by mere agent. and
that after tho company had agreed TO issue the policy
Judge Mohcrsf-l shall dsmss the complaint, Tor the
Because the contract between the parties was broken
by the assured having answered untruy win reference
10 one Of the questions while the contract expressly pro-
vded that The policy would become void In case o suy
msstaomsut fslsshood. Psiutf had stated tpss ne
had not been rejected BY company or omcer pfor
making the application 70 defendants and me evidences
vM undspated that between January 10 and May ls6l
Tho assured was rejected By Mr. hewitt, agecs o. w
agent Of such rejection. Tho alowascs Tor counsel
shis case lpsll BE- oxsd a. f1sO, ~
- s.ff a~s5-ksss = -.
City Inseiiigsacs.
Tus CRoss Towx RAILROADS Axp PaornHry OwSsRs.-
By references 70 an sdverssmsos 10 another column
iii e. mn ~ The owners Of property on the line Of
an. r,opos.d cross 5Wn rsIroads rom Forty second
ssreet hrousb Lexington svS6d6 ana - orn are getting
copslderably excited against the scheme.
FRS IL THIRD Avnxur shortly alter eight o'clock last
nsh, Ore broke out IN sho brick building No. $50 Third
avenue owned by nss r. Grry. ramage 10 The building
sbou, a 600 insured 10 the Park Insurance Company for
Al zoo the nre was nrs discoveries IN the back base
,ren, 1be cause IL a present unknown The store 10
occun,ed nv Mrs.. Parker 40 q millinery establishment
10 stock about $500 insured for $500 In the Con
t,reotsi insurance Company. No 683k confectionery
ssorc rant by Mr. Carr loss stock about 1900; In
sured for III 400 the Fircmens Insurance Company
Tho Are did not extend 70 the uppcr part OF The premises