The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-08-04
TWO JURIEs DISAGREE.
Wyness Killing Reviewed in Light
of Recent Supreme Court Decision.

of Recent Supreme Court Decision.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Wyness against the Travellers In
suranee Company. was given in its essen
tlals in yesterdays Morning News. The
head notes of the decision. giving in fun
the points of law passed upon by the court.
are as follows;
Travellers Insurance Company vs.. Wy
ness Before Judge Norwood City Court
of Savannah.
Fish, il. Where the vital question in
volved in the trial of an action for a death
loss upon policy of accident insurance
was whether or not the slayer intended 10
kin the decedent it was not erroneous 10
refuse TO charge that presumption of an
intention to Kill on the part of the slay ar
arose from mere proof that the homicide
was committed with a weapon likely to
produce death Such a charge would. il
given, have lacked an essential qualidca-
lion, viz, that the proof must further
| show that the weapon was used in "a man
ner calculated TO cause death.
2. Where the policy in question or such
a trial covered death resulting from bodily
| injuries effected through external violent
| and accidental means, ana di1 not cover
| death resulting from any other cause, but
provided that unless affirmative proof Of
| death and of Qts) being the APP
| proxlmate result of external, violent and
| accidental means" should be furnished 10
| the insurance company within a specified
| time after such accident, AN claims based
| thereon" should be forfeited to the COM
| pany,' Il was not error TO charge the jury
| as follows: THE plaintiff must prove her
| case; that is. she must prove the contract
| upon which she sues, prove the death of
! the person who took out the pc icy. ana
| see that she makes proof of the death ac-
| cordIug 10 the requirements OF the policy
| When that is done, then the burden Is
| upon the defendant to show that the death
| or injury the result of which caused the
| death for which the suit is now pend
| ing, did not come under the rule of the
| policy, but fell under some OF che eXcep-
| tons that are excluded by the policy; in
! other words, causes that the policy did not
| or does not cover"
| 3. Nor was it error in such case to
| charge the jury: IF you find from the
! from the result of which Che insured
| died, and that the injury so inflicted was
| Unexpectedly inflicted and without cause
| or provication Wha tever, so far as (the
| insured) was concerned, then you ought to
| find in favor of the plaintiff for the
| amount sued for unless il further appears
from the evidence that (K) Intentionally
| inflicted such injury. the burden being
/ upon the defendant to satisfy the jury
that such intent existed on the part OF
| (k), by a preponderance of the evil
| dence"
4. There being evidence in the case
which, if credited by the jury, was sufi-
! cient to authorize the verdict which they
| rendered, this court will not disturb Their
! findings upon the ground that the verdict
! is contrary TO the evidence
Judgment affirmed. All concurring
Barrow & Osborne for plaintiff in err
| ror.
R. r. Richards and Mercer & Mercer
| contra.
The decision was delivered by Justice
| Fish and was concurred IN by an of the
| other members of The cour.. 1t will be
seen by reading the headnotes that the
| decision is based upon the question of the
! intentional or accidental nature of the pis-
! to wounds inflicted upon Wyuess by
kearney which The jury, by ills verdict
| had pronounced accident al The court
| finds that there was some evidence that
I if believed by the jury, would warrant
such finding, and refuses on this ground
to overturn the verdict and Judgment Of
the lower court.
Thus a most anomalous state Of affairs
is presented. Kearney is in the peniten-
tiary, serving a life sentence for the muir
der of Wyness, che jury having found that
the homicide was committed with DELHI
crate malice. while the widow Is to receive
5000 from the insurance company,
|
has found that the homicide was an acct
| dent.
1t has been frequently decided by the
! highest courts of almost all the states
| that when a man is killed by another
! whether deliberately or unintenuonally
that it is an accident as TO him. If in
| such a case the dead man carried a policy
of accident insurance his heirs would be
able, in the absence of some express con-
| dition. to recover from The company.
This phase of the Jaw has induced many
| OF the companies to include in their poll
! cles a provision, providing that if the
| death resulted from the violent and inten-
! tional assault of another it would not be
| such an accident as was contemplated and
| would bar recovery on the part of the
! beneticiaries. There was such a clause in
| the policy held by Wyness, and it, there
| fore, became necessary for his widow to
prove that death was not Intentionally in
! fjcted.
! In this instance 1t would seem that the
wheels Of justice, in their ponderous revo-
! lutions, have ground out strange grst and
| produced a rule that does not by any
! means work both ways. The strangeness
| of the existing state of affairs is accen-
| tuated by the fact that the jury in the
! criminal case must have been satisfied Of
! the correctness Of their finding beyonu
| a reasonable doubt, while the preponder-
! ance of the evidence sufficed in the civil
action. Thus it is that one jury has de-
termined that beyond a reasonable doubt
| the killing was intentional while another
! jury, with almost idenGcally the same
testimony TO consider. found that the pre-
| ponderance of the evidence showed the
| reverse TO be the case.
The case and It's developments furnish
| arguments TO those who regard the jury
| system as antiquated and unsatisfactory
| and who win deduce from the divergent
| findings of the two juries the conclusion
that, IL the quality of jurys mercy is
not strained, the quality of its law and
| justice certainly is.
Child Robbed on the Streets