The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-03-11
RuDsPETH HEIRS
lose INSURANCE !|}|
fudge ingram Rules That There
Was Not Sufficient Proof
OF Death.
EHREE POLICIES HAD LAPsED
4. Justis Paid Premiums
on His Policy for Seven
Years After Disappearance.

After q trial lasting for almost q
week, the jury in the Law and EqulsS
,ourt yesterday rendered a vcroict ~
he defendant In the suit OF the se-
turity Bank OF Richmond against the
Equitable Life Assurance Society OF
he TJntted States. The action was tor
he recovery OF $4,000 in three insur.
anta policies carried by Charles IA.
Iudspeth. IT was claimed By the
blaintiff that Hudspeth disappeared
from the city moro than seven years
hEo, and havinE not been heard from
since, his heirs We're entitled to the
mount OF HIS policies.
The Instructions of Judge ingram
we're to the effect that sufficient proof
4 dealt, had not bcen produced. In
lew Of this. the counsel for the plain
iff decided not to argue the case, but
hoted an appeal. "A motion to set
side the verdict was overruled. Thci
Euit has created more interest thar
nv OF the kind in recent years.
Judge migrants opinion was as fol-
ows:
.The first question to be decided Is
whether the furnishing of satisfactory
proofs OF death Is for the jury OF the
eourt. OF course. the fact as 70
whether the proofs We're furnished, or
we're furnished within a reasonable
inc. are for the jury, and not for the
.ourt. but when furnished, and within
] reasonable time, their sufficiency is,
or the court. The great weight OF
authority is to this effect" Flo then
eited a number of cases bearing on
The point.
Policies Lnpscd.
.The instructions which on this point
he court is asked to give, are as fol-
ows:t
THAT If the policies sued on in this
ease had lapsed by reason of non-pay-
nent of premiums before the beginning
Of the suit, or that the suit was
,rought before satisfactory proofs OF
he death had been furnished to the
defendant. then the jury must find
kor the defendant.
That the statements set forth in
he paper signed Jackson Guy. cashier,
and marked "a with the claimants
statement arc not such satisfactory
proofs OF the death OF the assured as
is contemplated by the policies sued
on in this case: and unless the jury
believes from the evidence that further
proof of the death of the assured was
furnished TO the defendant before this
suit was brought, then 1t must find
for the defendant.
AS to whether satisfactory proofs
OF death We're furnished TO the COM
pany prior TO the institution OF this
suit. statement ~ furnished b. tn,
cashier and attached to the claimant
statement speaks for itself, and is a
follows:
He disappeared from Richmor
about March 6, 1909. without warnir
ITO family and friends, was traced
washington, D. c.. by detectives, WI
learned lie had been drinking vel
heavily. Since that his family HI
not had n line from him.. or otherwi
heard anything whatsoever from hi
We sent full description to all poll
bureaus and detective agencies, ofre
ing reward.
Hudspcth Disappeared.
"'It is said he was very ambitio,
to make money was very desDOndel
and exceedingly dissipated. Had 10
all his means, which we think cause
Il him to take his own life. Last tin
seen, as far as we know, was at Johr
a son Hotel. Washington, d. c.. abol
~ 2 p. NJ. on Monday. March 10, 100.
g After his departure. his room wa
8 searched, and in it were found a nun
5 Der OF empty whiskey bottles, carrie
81 there by him. 1t was proven that Il
II drank very heaVliy Mt the bar of sal
g hotel. His family h~as;,slso made ever
Y effort TO locate him, Sb,At, without sue
81 ''Thi was attached to and made
81 part of the proof of the death O
" Hudspeth by the Security Bank an
p. signed by the cashier, jackson Guy.
In the courts mind this statemen
is5no only not such satisfactory proof
81 of the death of the assured (NIr. Huds
pispeth), as is contemplated by the poll
os Giles sued on in this case, but the
arc not proofs of his death at all.
= Is argued, however, that all that coul
was done. and ! do not doubt
for one instant. but this does not solv
1.-THE question, for we have a valid con
aEditton precedent that statement q
Walls to meet the requirements or. ]
Ills not the assurance company's faul
Pit is not the banks fault. but the re
duiren,cnts Of the law must be cal
sried out, for there is an absence {
proof OF death. A witness for I'll
plaintiff, r. a. Justis, testified Q
the stand that he had a similar polio
on the life of AR. Hudspeth. and til;
he was paid in full, but that he COZ
tinued the payment of tho premium
until seven had elapsed fro