Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-05-08
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. 3. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
ViRclNIAN. PILOT.
Notes Of Gases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
: oETERs v. S. L. KNIGHTS OF
HONOR.


HONOR.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
,je ~ March Is, 1900.
THE FILING OF A BILL OF PAR
TICULARs WITH THE PLEA OF
NON-ASSUMPSIT DOES NOT AFT
Feet THE CHARACTER OF THE
PLEA. THE BURDEN OF PROOF
IS STILL ON THE PLAINTIFF.
DECLARATIONS OF ONE PARTY
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE ARE
ADMISSIBLE WHEN OFFERED
BY THE ADVERSE PARTY.
In this case the defendant on mo-
ton OF the plaintiff. filed with its plea
OF non assumpsit the grounds of its de-
renee, which were that plaintiffs in
testate had been suspended as a mem
Der OF the Knights Of Honor for nom
payment of dues, and had never been
reinstated. and therefore the plaintiff
could not recover any insurance on his
intestates life.
The court says:
Non-assumpsit Is a negative plea. and
requiring the defendant to state his
grounds OF defence under that plea
does not change its character The
whole object of the statute under which
such requirement. is made OF a de-
PENDANT Is to give the plaintiff reason
able notice OF the particular defence
upon which the defendant expects to
rely. The issue OF non assumpSit Is so
proad and embraces such a variety OF
uefences that 1t gives little information
TO the plaintiff OF the case which he Is
expected to meet. He was often sur
prised, and there was not unfrequently
a miscarriage OF justice. and 1t was
these evils which the statute was de-
Digned to remedy. The character of
the plea Is In no degree changed. The
specification OF defenccs does not con-
vert the general Issue into a special
plea or negative defence into an az
frmative one. It's whole object and
effect Is to limit the scope and oper-
alton OF the general issue and to con-
hne the introduction of evidence to the
particular defence which the defendant
has disclosed. The burden OF proof
then was still upon the plaintiff
Upon this pleading. the plaintiff.
Diedrich Oeters took the stand and
testified that he was brother of
Martin Oeters. who died in 1895. and
who held benefit certificate in the
Knights of Honor, which was found
among his papers after his death. This
benefit certificate was put in evidence,
accompanied by the application for
membership. and two letters. one writ
ten by George II. Reth. reporter of the
Monroe Lodge. knights OF Honor. and
the other by Marsden Bellamy SUI
preme Dictator. Knights of Honor. and
both addressed to the plaintiff.
Certain heterogeneous propounded
to the defendant by the plaintiff and
the answers thereto, with certain pa
pers accompanying them, were also In
trpduced and this was all the evidence.
Thereupon the defendant demurred,
and the jury rendered a verdict for the
plaintiff subject to the demurrer, upon
which the court entered Judgment for
the defendant. A writ of error was
awarded to this Judgment upon the Pc
tltion OF Diedrich Oeters.
The contention of the plaintiff in
error Is that having introduced evil
dence showing that Martin Oeters had
been admitted as a member of the
Knights OF Honor and that certificate
had been duly issued to him as such,
the presumption is that he was at the
date of the certificate member an
good standing OF that order, and this
status, this good standing. Is presumed
to continue until his death, and casts
upon those who controvert 1t the bur-
den OF proof to show that at some Pc
riod between the date OF the issue of
the benefit certificate and his death his
rights as member in good standing
had been forfeited for failure upon his
part to comply with his duty to the
order.
Upon the part of the defendant, 1t is
contended that the right of Diedrich
Oeters to recover is conditioned upon
the death Of Martin Oeters as a Knight
OF Honor In good standing that this
was q condition precedent to any re-
covery. and was put in Issue by the de-
fendants plea OF non assumpsit, and
that the issue OF the certificate is not
sufficient to maintain the claim upon
the part Of the plaintiff.
In the view that we take of the case
this feature OF the controversy need NOT
be decided. Plaintiff introduced and
read in evidence two letters. Here fol-
low the letters.]
These letters were obviously written
in answer to communications from the
plaintiff demanding payment OF the
certificate issued to his brother. Martin
Oeters. They could not have been in
troduced by the defendant. but when
offered by the plaintiff were. Of course,
admitted. The statements made in
them are clearly relevant to the Issue
before the jury. are uncontradicted by
any other evidence in the record. and
are therefore to be taken as tending to
prove the facts stated in them We
need not undertake to measure and de-
fine their exact probative force and eff
feet: 1t is enough that they are decla-
rations OF the defendant offered by the
plaintiff, and are germane to the issue
The case then before the jury was, that
Martin Oeters having taken out ben
eft certificate in the Knights of Honor
was suspended on January 1. 1885, for
the non-payment Of the assessments
made against him in December 1894.
and was. therefore. not n member Of
xbe order a. tho Tina ~ HE death Coo