, 1889-07-18
SUICIDE UNDER THE LAW.
THE STATUTES ARE NOT EXPLICIT
ON A COMMON SUBJECT.

Courts Diner In Their Rulings, but There
Is n General Consensus OF Opinion on
Certain Points That Have ~ArIsen-severa,
Examples.
Suicide under the law is rather a diff
cult thing to define. 1t is particularly
difficult in view of the different rulings
that the courts of different states have
adopted. The provisions of insurance
policies are so varied and contradictory
in their terms that it is next to impos-
sible to say what is the general rule.
In a case brought before the supreme
court of Michigan, the argument was on
an insurance policy, the terms of which
covered hurts from accidents, but not
suicide. The question Of insanity en-
tered into the determination, of course,
of the case, and the verdict was that If
the insured killed himself, while insane
and not conscious of what he was doing,
the act wa not suicide within the mean
ing of the policy, nor was it within the
exception made in case of death result
ing from bodily disease. and that q re-
covery could he had on the policy.
h decision of the court was to the
effect that on the question of voluntary
suicide, Intentionally committed by a
sane man in the possession of his facul-
ties, knowing how to adopt means t o
ends, and conscious of the immortality of
the act, all authorities agree that self de-
struction is within the exemption; and all
authorities likewise agree that an acct
dental death-as by taking poison by mis-
take, or shooting ones self with a pistol,
supposing it not to be loaded, or falling
from a building or death happening in
any way by the unintended act of the
party dying-is not within the exemption.
THE RULE IN ENGLAND.
The difficulty arises whether suicide by
an insane man is also within the exemp-
ton, and on this point different doctrines
have been maintained. On the one hand
it is claimed that if the act be voluntarily
done in pursuance of an intelligent pur-
pose, and Intentionally and intelligently
carried out by the proper adoption of
means to ends, it is suicide on the part of
the insured, or death by his own hands,
although insanity exists to such an extent
that he may not be able to appreciate the
moral qualities of the act.
On the other hand it is maintained that
however intelligently the act may be
done, if at the time the will be overpow-
cred by an uncomfortable impulse, or the
party be unable to appreciate the moral
character of the act, it is not within the
meaning of the provision relating to self
destruction-in other words the man did
not die by his own v~olition, and was not
a suicide in any proper sense of the term.
In the case in question the rule laid
down In England in a celebrated case
was adhered to. The words of the pol
icy were that it should be void if the per-
son insured should die by his own hand.
The man threw himself from the Vaux-
hall bridge, in London, into the Thames
and was drowned. The jury found that
he voluntarily threw himself into the
river, knowing at the time that he should
thereby destroy his life, and intending
thereby to do SO; but at the time of COM
hitting the act he was not capable of
Judging between right and wrong.
1t was held that the policy was void,
the rule being laid down, in effect, that
the moral condition of the mind was i'm
material, and if, when the act was done,
the insured knew that life would be
thereby destroyed, and intended it to be
SO, the policy is violated under the con-
dition, although the insured was insane
at the time.
The supreme court of Massachusetts
held to practically the same opinion.
THE NEW YoR DOCTRINE"
In New York in the earliest case it
was a part of the stipulation that the
policy was to become void if the assured
died by his own hand. The insured
came to his death by suicide by drown
ing himself in tho Hudson river. Chief
Justice Nelson. delivering the opinion of
the court, said, speaking legally: "Self
destruction by a fellow being bereft
of reason can with no more propriety
be ascribed to the act of his own hand
than to the deadly instrument that may
have been used for the purpose.
1.-THE drowning was no more the mans
act, in the sense of the law, than if he
had been impelled by irresistible physical
force; nor is there any greater reason
for e~xempting the company from the
risk assumed in the policy than if his
death had been occasioned by such
means. Suicide involves the deliberate
termination of ones existence while in
the possession and enjoyment of his
mental faculties. Self slaughter by an
insane man or lunatic is not an act of
suicide within the meaning of the law"
This rule was modified to some extent
by a succeeding decision. In that it was
held that under the law in New York
the words die by his own hand" have
reference to an intelligent voluntary act,
and not to a suicide committed by a
party in n state of mental arrangement
so great that the act of self destruction
is to be regarded as wholly involuntarily.
The leading case in this field is that
known as the New York doctrine" 1t
was stipulated that the policy was to be
void if the insured should die by his own
hand. Mr.. Justice Hunt, after a full re-
view of the case. laid down the rule thus:
IF the assured, being in the possession
of his ordinary reasoning faculties, from
anger, pride, jealousy. or a desire to es-
cape from the ills of life, Intentionally
takes his own life, the proviso attaches,
and there can be no recovery.
"If the death is caused by the volun-
tary act of the assured, he knowing and
intending that his death shall be the re-
et,lt Of HE oct lint wbap HE raaoop;po