New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-11-30
THE COURTS,
second District Cnnn,

Before this court to-day will come rule
which involves the application Of the law
| relative to the appointment of natural
| tutrlXes OF minor children. The circum-
! stances of the case may be briefly related
| as follows:
Some years ago, before the Sixth District
| Court, man and wife were divorced. To
the former was adjudged the possession Of
| the only child, a daughter of ten years.
| Directly upon obtaining the divorce, the
man married again, but dying soon there
| alter, he left his daughter to his widow
The divorced wife thereupon applied to this
court, on the twenty ninth of October last
and was appointed the natural tutrix of the
child, and the court ordered the sheriff to
place the child in the mothers possession.
Before the sheriff could execute the or
der, the under tutor came into court and
took rule on the mother to show cause
why the order should not be set aside. At
the same time the sheriff was enjoined from
executing the order until after the hearing
of the rule.
Among the allegations on which the ap-
plications in the ruB is based appears one
that the mother is o woman of notoriously
bad character, and hence not morally fitted
to assume the duties Of natural tutrix to
her minor child. The features of the case
are OF considerable interest, and it will at
tract enlarged attention from parents and
guardians.
Seventh District Court.
Harriet Hillebrant ys. Mutual Aid Insur-
ance Company.-In this case plaintiff
brought action to recover on a policy of lie
insurance issued to her husband.
Defendants resisted payment on the
ground that Behrle, the deceased, had
falsely represented himself to be of sober
habits, when it was proved that he was q
very Incorporate person. The court gave
Judgment for defendant, and upon appiCa-
ton of plaintiff granted new trial On
this new trial Judge Collens has rendered
the following opinion:
Il remarked in the first decision that
the evidence forces the conviction that
Behrle must have been previously Ito his
application for life insurance. an inebriate;'
that the policy is therefore forfeited for
cOnCealment and misrepresentation for in
the application he declared he was sober
and temperate man; that nothing short of
proof that defendants were made aware Of
Behrle's previous habits, and that those
habits had been discontinued, could rebut
the effect of this proof"
The new trial was granted to enable the
plaintiff to adduce proof on these points,
viz: /. Notice of previous habits. 2. And
proof of reform. A frank disclosure of the
past and fair commencement of reformed
habits, were necessary to meet the evidence
which established Behrles Incorporate in
diligence in spirituous drink, and which dis
credited his written representations Of pres
ent s0briety and temperance. The new evil
dence does not show either a candid dis
closure or reform. 1t is only shown that the
examining physician judged from Behrle's
appearance that he was an habitual inebri-
ate, and decided against accepting the risk
but thereupon Behrle, and friend who &C
cOmpanied him to the Office, dissuaded the
doctor and other officers Of the company
from this opinion, and induced them TO
change their minds They gave up their
inference drawn only from BehrIe's per
son&l appearance, and conhded in the state |
ments Of himself and friend.
These statements were made in terms |
calculated to produce the impression that |
Behrle had drank too much occasionally |
and in circumstances which no longer ex- |
istod; that he was not inclined to the abuse |
OF Intoxicating drinks; that he had sold his |
c0ffeehouse SO as to avoid the disagreeable !
necessity Of drinking to please customers, |
and that having parted with tho coffee |
house, he had resumed his usual temperate |
mode Of life.
If there had been an actual resumption |
of sobriety a0me time before the date Of the /
insurance, and if the statements were other |
wise correct, think much more direct and !
evidence Of their being true than |
what has been adducCd could have been !
easily furnished. ] think the facts of con !
cealment and misrepresentation remain IN
refute& The defendants have proved |
enough 20 throw the Onus on plaintiff OF j
proving clearly. tOrcibly ami affirnatively
5he truth of the written representation in 7
5he application, and IN this Che plaintiff has
allied.
.'.adg1Qant Cor defendant