The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-03-10
EQUITABLE WINS
HUDsPETH SUIT
Verdict for Defendant Return
ed in Action Brought by
Security Bank
BASED ON INSTRUCTIONS
FROM JUDGE INGRAM
Case Involving Unique and I'm
usual Points of Law is
Brought to
Close.

Based practically on instruction re-
ceived from Judge Ingram. verdict
for the defendant was returned In this
Law and Equity Court Thursday in
the suit Of the Security Bank of Rich
mond against the Equitable Life As
surance Society for 500, zoo. The case
went to the jury at / A. M and in
less than an hour the verdict had been
rendered
The Security Bank brought suit to
recover on policy carried by Charles
II. Hudspeth In the defendant COM
pany. Hudspeth disappeared from
Richmond eight years ago. leaving a
note intimattng that he would commit
suicide. Nothing has been heard from
him since that time and the presump-
ton is that he took his life. Under
the law. he Was dead at the expiration
OF seven years from the time of his
disappearance.
1t appears, however. that claim
for the insurance was put in within
year after his disappearance. and II
was chiefly around this point that the
argument of the lawyers conferred.
Arrayed on the side of the bank
were Messrs. Guy & Guy and Charles
V. Meredith. The firm of Christian.
Gordon & Christian and Mr.. Hin Car
ance company.
The case went to trial last Monday.
the taking of testimony being con-
ciuded early the next day Argument
on Instructions WIS then begun. con-
Guiding shortly before the case went
to the jury Thursday morning. Twice
alter being dismissed Tuesday the jury
reported back To the court as directed
and as often were told to go away and
report again
The jurors breathed an air of evil
dent relief when they finally disposed
Of the case.
Motion Overruied.
Counsel for the plaintiff made a
motion to have the verdict set aside.
but the Hietiea was promptly ever
to prepare a I'LL of exceptions. and
were granted ninety days time.
In his instructions TO the jury.
Judge ingram said. among other
things; The first question to be de-
tided &c whether the furnishing of
satisfactory proofs OF death Is fer
the jury or the court. OF course.
the fact as tn whether the proofs
were furnished. or were fur
nished within reasonable time. Is
for the jury and not for the court.
hMt when furnished. and ~itain a
reasonable time. their sufficiency is
for the court. The great weight of
authority Is To this effect"
Proofs Insufficient.
Commenting upon statement pro-
duced at the trial tending To show
that Hudspeth was dead, Judge In
gram gays:
To the courts mind this state
ment is not only not such satisfac-
tory proof of the death of Mr.. Huds-
peth as is contemplated by the poll
cies sued on in this case, but they are
not proofs of his death at all, 1t is
argued. however, that this is all
that could be done. and / do not
doubt 1t for one instant; but this
does not solve the question It is
not the assurance company's fault. 1t
is not the banks fault. But the re-
auirements of the law must he car
! ried out. for there Is an absence nf
proof OF death A witness for the
plaintiff. Mr. r A. Justis. testified
on the stand that he held a SINH
lar policy on the life of Mr.. Hubs
peth. and that he was paid in full,
but that he continued payment of
premiums until seven years had
elapsed from the time Mr. Hudspeth
went from the State, when he was
presumed to be dead unless proof
was made that he was alive within
that time. The question Is a narrow
one and an interesting one but after
carefully considering the able argu-
ments of counsel and the cases cited
and taking the law on the interpre-
tation of the meaning Of the re-
rxttir n,tS ~ Iph r Hzy