Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-07-26
An Insurance TnngIe.

To the Editor OF The Journal.
For unto every one that hath shaH be
given. and he shall have abundance, but
from him that hath not shall be taken
away even that which he hath McElroy
versus Merine. Thirty years ago Artist
John c. Merine and Mary a. Merine,, his
wife, secured a joint policy upon their lives
in the Connecticut Mutual Insurance Com
pany. For twenty-seven years or prosper
ity and adversely 1t was maintained Tor
the proverbial rainy day. and about 5000
were paid into the companys corners. Inc
amount insured for was 5000.
Last August death claimed the husband
and provider and a once happy nome was
rent asunder. Twenty years ago Mr.; Me
rine began borrowing money from Hugh
McElroy, and in the intervening years mad
borrowed and paid hundreds and thousands
of dollars, always at 10 per cent COM
pounded. At the time of his death, he was
owing him nine 500 notes, with interesting
for three premiums Mr.. McElroy had pald,
amounting to about $3.50 Mr.. Mer1ne, was
an artist rather than ~hnancier. and al
though his income varied from 1000 to 5000
a year, the financier usually has the better
of the artist in money matters, and by a
peculiar irony of fate the millionaire
adorns % his walls with pictures the art
list would scarcely hang in his hencoup, or,
perhaps, rear bedroom.
Mrs. Merine was aware that her husband
had placed the insurance papers In the
McElroy's possession as collateral for the
notes. He intended to pay them in a short
time, and, under that impression, Mrs. Me
rins had signed them with him. She also
knew that MIR. MCElrOy ndu insisted TIME
and again hat they transfer the policy 10
him and she had positively declined. 1t
was a dominant thought for years that she
and 1t was the more impressed because it
was the first and only time she had ever
refused to sign a paper for her husband.
As she kept midnight vigils during his last
Illness, he referred to the life insurance,
tiding through the hard times and saving
the sacrifice of property. Mrs. Merines
surprise was ineXpressible when last Sep
TENDER in the MCElroy office, a detached
paper purporting to be a transfer or the
policy was shown her with her husbands
her own name written. She had never seen
that paper before. In speaking OF the trans
fer. Mr.; Merine had always SAID she would
go to the office of the McElroys and sign
las she UNDERSTOOD the policy. Was II a
business-like proceeding for a man OF Mr.;
McElroy's acumen TO send out a detached
paper and have no witness to such an i'm
portant transfer? Though her husband may
have signed his name to the paper there
she is positive he never brought the paper
from the office, as she had the care OF all
the business papers, and at the time ne
may have signed it he did not know she
would refuse to sign it. and he also al
ready had the money in his possession,
unless. perhaps. the last note.
During the trial in Judge Slovers court
Judge Brumback; for Mrs. MerInei pre-
had sent the insurance company IN 1891,
stating they had made every effort pos
sible to secure a more speclhG aSSIghns
ment from the Merines and had failed.
of which his honor took no notice, seem
ingly. During her husbands lifetime Mr..
McElroy tried to compel Mrs. Merine 10
pay the notes, and the law protected her.
She solemnly and emphatically AYERS that
she did not sign the transfer; neither DID
Mr.. Merine sign ii for her, She mas many
reasons for knowing he did not, and not
one for thinking that he did. He could not
have died, she claims. without telling her
and saving her the publicity. expense and
humiliation of n lawsuit. Judge Slovers
decision against Mrs. Merine was upon
what high authorities claim TO be the
lowest order of evidence" In the so-called
expert testimony of the several business
men. each one admitted he might be mis-
taken. and had been I'm his business career.
In Judge Stiles forcible and eloquent plea
for a new trial for Mrs. .Merine. he quoted
among many others from the supreme