Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-07-03

ne had paid one note for s2s7. and made
Two small payments on the note sued on,
besides writing several letters promising
70 pay balance. Never before quit did he
ouer 70 rescind because slip was not
signed, as he asserted at the trial II
SHOULD have been. or make any COM
pant TO the company or the plsintif or
the omission.
HE'D: IL was the imperative duty OF
the aeiendant to examine the policy
p'ompuy upon receiving it. and IL he
meant 10 claim the slip as part OF the
eonuac', 70 return policy and slip within
lsasonSple tine that IL might be signed
ann attached; and IL not done TO demand
mat the contract be rescinded and his
notes returned to him. Piympton va.
Dunp, lss Mass., Sz3; Leigh VS.. Brown. Is
:. Il. X, OIL. IN such cases great dill
gence Is demanded OF the parties. and thu
oeiay OF twenty months cannot be sane
TONED. His negligence was inexcusable
MS delay unreasonable. He received the
Dement, OK the policy from it's date. The
company kept his life insured and. car
ried the risk, and furnished a considera-
tion that cannot be restored Had he died
IN that time II might have paid the policy
"lthout suspicion that he claimed there
was no binding contract. unless the slip
oe entitled 70 exercise II he lived until
the maturity Of the policy, twenty years
IRON its date was signed BY his acts
and delay he lost the right 10 rescind the
contract TO avoid the note sued upon and
TO recover back what he had paid, which
was the only damage attempted to be
proved.
Judgment entered here for plaintiff
such as should have been entered by the
Circuit Court on the verdict.
A DIVORCE CASE.
Owens VS.. Owens. Affirmed. Opinion
by Keith. p.
wife in delicate health driven from
her home. and returning upon promise
OF kind treatment, the promise violated.
and the offence renewed violently
jeIked from her and compelled TO sleep
upon the floor: accused In the grossest
terms Of inildelity to her marriage VOW,
and her children denounced as bastards,
and finally ordered to leave and never
to return.
Held: l. These acts establish n plain
case OF cruelty and q reasonable ap-
prohension OF bodily hurt" justifying a
decree OF divorce from bed and board.
2. The innocent parent on whose
preyer the divorce is granted VIII usu-
ally have the custody of the children. A
woman compelled by her husband TO re-
sort 10 divorce ought not 10 obtain 1t
at the cost of the society of her children,
and also because one who he's done well
or i'll in the marriage relation will be
likely to do the same in the parental,
all courts lean TO the innocent parent
when determining the custody OF the
children
3. At time Of marriage husband and
wife had very little property By indus
try and thrift they became owners Of a
farm worth $3.50, and personally worth
500. The husband is between 40 and 40
years old, strong. and in good health.
He is under a legal obligation to sup
port his wife and children, and If, with
out their fault. ne renders it impossible
for them 10 remain under his roof, he
cannot. by his misconduct, escape the
duty which the law imposes In view
of the fact that the Circuit Court, in
fixing the amount OF alimony at $40 q
month. reserved the right 10 increase
or diminish the amount allowed, and
that 1t will doubtless give any relief to
which the parties may show themselves
entitled. nothing further need be said
on this branch Of the case.