The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-03-04

following pteceients established BY q The
naHst emlaent 1'rists anNl 'he highest
May oil ifsa drs seotloa sss. page eas.
Death by the Hands of Justlrt.--"Usu nl-s
tly,, associated with the exception Of IN
suicide e that . 'taeath,by TIC
3Tinaal. e. ~, ms dying in. tconse1,ene,el
of ~ felony previously cotnttll tied It is
death under and by virtue Of q judicinl
sellsfs foF etae exae q %'rf
,bility In case death by hands OF justice,
has been slleld to be unnecessary, ms II is
against public tipolicy to insure aen Inst
such risk Should not be covered ~ Tic.
policy even lf Expressly a greed upon AS
the Il. law will not permit; an express stip.
ulation thatsa man shall derive necuniary
benefit upon his dying by the hands OF
,publlc Justice, as against public policy,
IT will not imply any such stipula ION.
Death, thereforeIgat the hands of public
Indemnity. under. policy, whether IL
,tion.38 &. a3ss FL sst2 85
~ In VarYe On Insurance, page 52i, l one q
o@lntest authorities upon&the subject,
Il fogna much the same docsr ~ ~ N
there can DO found no caso exactly similar
to the McCuel case in particulars, both as
to thoAmurder nrld as to tho Issuance, 9 t
the great Il principle involved. MS to
whether or mot these policies ire en-
forceable, Sremains II he McCue case the
salne,f as in the gadjud cated cases ITO be-
6aGi 1t ali direety upon the question
involved. n Ssl3 sls5ij
B III 1880, a ca Sc was decided inSthe. House
OF Lords III England (reported N ! .3llgtls
Chancellor Lyndhurst, in developing the
opinion of ssthe court, said 1T appears
plain and simple consideration. suppose
that II, the policy Itself this risk has
been insured against; that Is, that tho
party insuring has greed to pay q, sum
that in the event Of his committing u
capital I felony and being tried and exc
cuted for that, felony his $assigners shall
receive g certain sum of rnoney----is II I'M
sustained |? Is it not void upon tho plnin--
est principle public policy Would not
such q contract Or avallable) take away
one Of those. restraints. operatn 8, on the
OF crimes-namely the interest we have
in the welfare and prosperity Of our con-
nectlons? NoW.&if policy OF that DIS
cription With such form. OF conditions
inserted INIT; in express terms, cannot
on grounds ofspublic policy. be sustained,
how is lit SGbe commended thatss,ln a.
policy expressed IN such terms as the
after the events which have g
"
claim (? 5g Cam we. in consid erngay this
policy, givel'to5it the cfreotYiof that in
,sertion.. hich.S II expressed . in3Fterr,s.
would the noii' icy tar
gether void. "ss The only case which, can
DO q found {itn slanyss Off the American re-
ports which bears nnyWse direct lyfIupot,n
,mindTis sthe one reported in atrecent res
port oftthe limited States Supreme Court:
tbs the case; OF, Burt vs. Union. Centr a
Life Insurance Company, reported yro IN iS1,
y. s., 3699, % supreme Court {l'5
This was an@action TO Frecover on q
policy OF life Insurance and was z, Z conf
rtlenced in the n District Court of TRAVIS
county, Texas, and removed TO the C n,
cult Court Of the ~ United States for Ihe
was issued August i, 1891 and William
E.FBurt was the insured. The policy, in
case Of death, Is payable TO Anna n "
Burt,,wife of the insured, II living 3other-]|
assigns. On September 10. 1885, the lhene--$|
ficiary, Anna NJ. Burt, and her hus-5
band assigned sone-half interest T., TO the n
plaintiffs to secure them as creditors for
fcary, Anna M. Burt died intestate, as
did also the only children OF the benc-f
hcary and q the@insured. OnajFebruary
son 1Ssy the nsured e rea Hart
sole Sole e owners S'' 81 ii. THEY are also hs
sole heirs and as such are entitled t0#fullSI
benefits Of the policy, there being no adj
sity for one. On November ls6. the
Insured having been Indicted for the
murder of his wife, the beneficiary, was
tried and convicted in tho District Court
OF Travis county, Texas, was sentenced
to be put to death, and on May q, 1893,
was hanged pursuant to such sentence.
The petitioner in this case alleged that
twlthstanding t1 such conviction, SEN
tence and execution, The insured William
e. Burt did not In fact commit the
crime OF murder nor participate therein,
hut. that II no did the policy was not 70
time insane Mr.. Justis Brewer delivered
the opinion Of the court, which rs ~
part as follows :s!HThere is nothing IN the.
policy which In terms covers the contin-j
from given in the preceding statements.
being all that even remotely. by sugges;..
ton or influence can have any bearing"
The question, therefore, Is whether an
ordinary life policy containing no fappll-5
cable special proysn,ms Is Hho,ng GG
for crime. The petitioners would DIS
tinguish between cases In which the IN.
surcd is Justly convicted and executed
and those In which, heels un1ustlys com
viotnd. The allegat lon here Is that, not
ton, he was not In fact guilty; that he
did not participate In tho killing of his
wife. and that II he did,, he was insane
at the time and,Nt therefore, not responsi-
bio for his actions. Excepting NE diyl-
a lust Conclusion concerning tho rights
OF the parties heretorit Is asked; 'Flrst--
Whether a policy of life insurance liz ~
binding the Insurer o pay to |
the beneficiary the amount Or the pollcy