St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-12-09
MRS. MAVERICKS CASE.
Insurance Money Goes to Her Chill
dren-Reopening Probable.

Insurance Money Goes to Her Chill
dren-Reopening Probable.
LONDON, Dec. S.-The judges of the
court of appeal today held that the
Mutual Reserve Fund Life association
was liable for the payment of a $4,000
life insurance policy effected by the late
James Maybrick in favor of his wife, an
American lady (now in prison under
life sentence. after having been found
guilty of causing his death by admins
tering poison 20 him), provided the
wife does not benefit by the payment"
This decision has been awaited with
great interest by Insurance companies
throughout the world, and it eStab-
fishes a precedent In law affect
ing life insurance. The litigation
arose out of the famous "Maybrick
murder" case, and was brought by the
trustees of the late Mr.. Maybrick's es-
tate, the insurance company having re-
fused to pay the amount of the policy
on various legal grounds. the substance
of which was that Mrs. Maybrick muir
dered her husband; that the assignee
and executors sued as trustees for her,
and could be in no better position than
she herself would be in, and that it was
not in accordance with the policy of the
law that she should be enabled to re-
cover money payable OH an event
brought about by herown felonious act.
Against this decision the trustees APP
pealed, and a long legal battle was the
result. Mr.. Maybrick'S death occurred
May IL, 1889. By his will he left his
wife the beneficiary of the insurance.
The wife assigned the policy to Mr..
Claver, the solicitor who defended her
hot fIsa
costs of her defense had already
amounted to $500. and might amour to
$1,000. June last year this action was
brought on the insurance by him as as
Signee, and by MessrS. Thomas and
Michael MayDrick, the husbands ex-
ecutOrS.
The Mutual Reserve Fund Life asso-
citation set up as their defense that
James Maybrick died srom poison in
tentionally administered by Florence
Maybrick, who was tried and convicted
in July. 1889. upon an indictment charg-
ing her with the murder of James May
brick, and that, therefore, they were
not bound to pay any sum in respect of
the insurance.
The plaintiffs replied that the SEN
tence passed Oh Mrs. Maybrick was, on
the advice of the secretary of state for
the bone department, committed, Oh the
ground that the evidence did not prove
conclUsively that James Maybrick died
from the administering of arsenic or
other pOisonS by her; that the defense
set up afforded no defense in law. and
that the conviction was not evidence
against the plaintiffs in the action just
decided.
The defendants, on the other hand,
pleaded that after the trial and c0nvic-
nj l.
don was granted, and on the gTound OF
the pardon the defendants claimed that
Mrs. May brick or her trustees were not
entitled to recover.
Sir Charles Russell, on the part Of the
appellants, commended that they were
entitled to recover, inasmuch as the
contract had been made by The deceased
with the defendants, and that the wife
was no party 10 the policy. This seems
to have been the view of the case taken
by the court. in spite of the able argu-
ment of Sir Edward Clarke. the solicitor
general, who appeared for the insurance
company. 1t would appear that the
court of appeal. by its present decision,
has practically decided that Mrs. May
brick is dead in the eyes of the law, and
it would thus seem that this court had
admitted the business of the sentence
passed upon her, although facts brought
forward at the trial have Tot been pub
licly reviewed. In spite of this decision,
however. it seems certain that an effort
will be made to reopen the Maybrick
case. Sir Charles Russell is said to
have determined to appear for the UNI
fortunate American lady. aud it is re-
ported that he is prepared to raise
several new technical points and that
habeas corpus will shortly be applied
for