The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-03-02
suit JUST LIKE
JULIA A. GING'S|
CHRIsT1ANsoN LITIGATION HAS
A PRECEDENT.
Sister Of Catherine Cling Sued to Re-
cover Insurance on Life of Murdered
Woman, and Lost circumstances
Strikingly Similar Question Raised
Interests Many Policy Holders.

The suits Of Belle and Anna Chris
tianson to collect accident insurance
on the life of their murdered sister,
Lima Christianson, are practically par
allel with the one brought by Julia A.
Cling, sister to Katherine Cling, MUIR
dered in 1894 by Claus A. Blixt under
Harry Hayward's orders.
Judge j. F. MCGEE directed verdict
for the defendant in the Cling case and
his order was affirmed by the supreme
court. Upon this case the defendant
insurance companies depend in the
present litigation.
How the attorneys for the Christian
SONS will circumvent the Cling decision
IS matter OF interested surmise among
loca! attorneys. There are several sug-
gestlons! as to the theory upon which
the plaintiffs cases will be conducted,
but no hint from their attorneys can be
secured. - .......
It is suggested that an attack may
be made upon the policies on the
ground that certain clauses therein are
not such as subserve the good of the
state and are not equitable. There is
another and a more feasible plan sug-
gested, to wit, that the plaintiffs will
claim that the shooting of Lima Chris
tianson by Frederick B. Richmond was
unintentional and therefore accidental
because, at the time of committing the
crime, Richmond was insane and thus
incapable of legal intention. Whatever
| the plan, the cases should produce some
interesting legal arguments, and their
outcome will be closely watched.
49,. Similarity Is Marked.
The similarity of the Cling. and Chris
| tianson cases is remarkable. The man
ner of the death of the two women is
alike in that each was shot by man
without the slightest warning. In each
case sisters were named as the benef-
Charles in accident insurance policies.
The Cling policy was with the Travel
ers', and so is one Of the Christianson
policies. The Cling policy contains the
| clause: In ~ ..
This insurance does, not cover death re-
sulting wholly or partly, directly or In
| directly, from Intentional injuries in
t1icted by the insured or by any other
person, but this clause does not exclude
claims for personal injuries, fatal or non
fatal, received by the insured while she
is in the act Of defending herself, hel
family or her property from the assault O
burglars, robbers, thieves or pickpockets
Miss Christianson's policy reads:
This insurance does not cover injuries
fatal or non-fatal, inflicted Intentional.
by the insured or by any other person
except by burglars or robbers
| Policy Holders Interested.
In the Cling case it was claimed tina
the insured was fatally injured Will,
resisting the attack Of robbers. TIL
tplaintiff admitted that the injuries wer.
: Intentionally inflicted by Blixt. A. M
Higgins, attorney for the plaintiffs il
the Christensen case, contends that il
this Miss Cling $ attorneys made thei
fatal mistake. The plaintiffs in thu
present action Will not admit Rich
mond's intention to kill Miss Chris
tianson. In fact tit7is stated in thu
complaints that the fatal wounds were
inflicted by q pistol in Richmond's hang
that was accidentally discharged.'
The suit will result in general ex
animation Of accident insurance policies
and today many policies were dug ou1
Of safes and desk pigeonholes in al
effort to see if the benefciaries would
be able to collect in the event of the
insured being murdered.