Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1901-03-02
PUZZLED JUDGES.


Presumption OF survivorship conssti-
tutes a very knotty point which comes
up for solution from time to time i'm law
cases. If two or more relatives. heirs
to each other, perish in one common ac-
cident--e. g., shipwreck. fire, or a fallin.
building-and no evidence is forthcom-
ing as to which was the last to die, the
question OF survivorslrip. important to
the executors of each. has to be decided
on purely presumpuve grounds, and the
arguments brought forward when such
cases come into court are of.en in the
highest degree ingenious and interesting.
few examples, culled from the rec
o,ds of the last three centuries, are well
worth considera tion In 1929 French
LAZY and her aitt.e 4-year-ol daughter
were drowned in the River Loire Some
important property was involved, ami,
on appeal, the parliament of Paris de-
cided that the daughter succumbed firs:,
ben gby far the weaker of the two par
ties. On the other hand. a case, also in
France, was decided in a contrary way
only a few years later. A mother and
two children of tender years We're muir.
dered in the dead of night. The widower
claimed his wifes property on the
ground that the children had survived
their mother. and the property was adj
Juged to him. the argument admit,el
being that THE murderer would first dis
patch the victim he feared most.
singular case was recorded in 1868.
A father and son, fighting in the French
army which, in alliance with that Of
Cromwell, defeated the Span:aads ait the
battle of the Dunes. fell during the en-
gagement, which commenced at noon.
A daughter of the father. on the same
day at noon. became Il nun. thereby ren-
| derng herself dead in law, and the court
| had to settle which of the three survived.
1t decided: CD That the daughter died
| Tin law FIRST because her vow. being
voluntary was consummate instanta~
| neously, whereas her fathers and her
brothers wounds We're not necessarily
Immediately fatal; CD shat the father,
not having the physical powers of resist
ance possessed by the son. died before
him; (3) that the son therefore survived.
| a case somewhat similar TO the 9ast
came on in the ESnglish cou1', of cham
Gerry Is years later General StanWiN.
his second wife, and his only daughter
| by his first wife We're drowned in ship
! wreck in the Irish channel. A nephew
Of the general, as his heir, claimed his
property. An uncle CON the mothers
side), as heir to the daughter. did like
| wise, and a representative of the second
| wife also claimed.
On behalf of the generals heir 1T was
| argued that, the ship having foundered
in storm, the general was probably on
deck and his wife and daughter, being
probably below, would be drowned rst.
Counsel for the daughters heir urged
that the general was Old, and conse-
uuently feeble, while the daughter was
of particularly strong constitution and
nerve, and counsel for the wife's heir
brought arguments as 10 the proba biiity
of the wife's having been the last to eX-
pire.
Not a soul was saved. and there was.
therefore, no shred of evidence as to the
incidents Of the disaster. and the case
was so complicatd that the court. in de-
spai rat arriving at a conclusion, au-
| vised a compromise between the parties.
which was eventual yaiopted.
! Where drowning has been the cause OF
death. the afct that one of the parties
and not the other could swim is sone-
| times adduced, ana the height of in
genuity was, perhaps reached by the
executors of a lady drowned with her
| husband When they contended that IN
his efforts to save HIS wife the man
doubtless exhausted himself, and SO sank
first.
Cases such as these continue to ARISE
not infreouently. ana, although they are
usually settled without going into court
if is felt that it would be AN advantage
If the law on the subject were more cleaf
than it is at present.-l-ondon Mail.