New-York tribune., 1879-06-12
THREATS BY AN ATTORNEY.
A SUIT WHICH THE UNITED STATES LIFR INSURANCE
COMPANY CLAIMS Is A CORRUPT SCHEME.

A SUIT WHICH THE UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY CLAIMS Is A CORRUPT SCHEME.
George Hencken, jr., and Sophia Hencken
against the United Life Company aud
Others Is the title Of one Of number OF suits recently
brought against the defendants for common purpose
This action was begun yesterday before Judge BE icb
in Common Pleas, Special Term Nh. BenekeD. in July
1859. obtained policy for 5000, paying quarterly
premiums In May. 1866. at the OF thirty-eght he
took out another policy for $1,000 under premium.
which, after ten years. entitled him 10 pad-up policy
In 1872 he received in exchange for these two policies
policy for $4,000 Upon this he agreed to the pre-
required for insurer az his then fortyuur
and the company in compensation surrendered TO him
notes winch he had given in part payment Of premiums
to the OF 5554. This action is brought for the
cancellation Of the last policy aud TO compel the Testor
of the two former ones, the plaintiff claiming that
he was deceived Ly false representations into making
the exchange 1t is also alleged that the officers Of the
company entered into a scheme by which many policy
holders were inyeiged into receiving similar twisting
policies. The complaint asks for accounting OF all
business of the company and IL il should be found
to be insolvent, for the appointment of receiver
The defendants answer that the exchange of policies
was made with Henekens full knowledge of the char
acter the exchange; that ii voluntary
ment for the payment Of the former insurance by
method moro convenient for the policyholders. The
charges of schemes" tricks" " "swindlmg" de-
raudmg" are emphaticaly denied the defend dants
claim that jOinder the plaintiff HeEcken and mis-
wife in action fraud upon The defendants and
contempt OF the court and part OF corrupt scheme be-
tween the plaintiffs ana their counsel 10 harass the de
endants the counsel threatened that he would not
stop the litigation unless The company would pay the
plaintiff -. 800 ana himself "S20O0O in money, cash
down." and III addition furnish him win so-called
professional emplOym in behalf OF the company for
FIVE years.; that the counsel had GE0wed the purpose IN
ease these demands not complied WITH to make IL
cost the company much more than $50, 900; thai he
would bring other suits and would give hs tlme 10 lo
lowing mp The company, no matter what might De the
consequence to himself"
After W. Butler, the attorney for the plaintiff had
opened the great length. motion mado 10
dismiss the complaint on several grounds; that the
plaintiff had made demand for the exchange OF
policies began this action; that ne not the
of the policy but that II belonged 10 his wife and
children and the latter had not been made parties and
that planuf had ratified the present contract by
receiving the benefits of 1t. The arguments upon this
4notiOn viii probably continue thrOug hout todJs
sion. One similar case brought by the ne attorney
against the company dismissed by Judge sodgwtck
IN the Superior COurt another submitted 10 arbitration
was decided every point in layor or the company.
The counsel who appear for the defendants are \ j.
Vsnderpoel, W. A. D. Hegeman o. p. Buel, and W. II.
IngersOl!.