The Pontypridd District Herald and Rhondda Valley, Llantrisant, Caerphilly, and Mountain Ash News. — 1891-11-07 (Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan, Wales)

THE MAYBRICK CASE ATAIN: • "  Q 1721111014 OF INBUIANC6. Is the Court. of Appeal this week, before the Master of the Rolls, Load Justice Fry, tad Lord Justice Lopes, the case of Cleaver and others v. The Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association was heard. The appellants, who are the executors of the late Mr. Maybrick, smut the defeutlaut= policy of life insurance effected by the de during his lifetime for £2,000, in favour of hit wife, to whom, by the terms of the policy, the money was to be made payable. The Court below, consistiog of Justioes, Ltuonaan and Wills, held ,that proot that tlie husband h d died by poison feloniouily administereil by the wife afforded a good green(' of defence to the action, it being in their opinion against public policy that , a felon should profit by her act of felouy. Against this the plaintiff appealed. Sir C. Rursell, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Fickford), on the part of the appellants, contended that they were entitled to recover' inasmuch as the contract had been mane by the deceased with the defendants, and that the wife was no party to the policy. It was not a part of public policy that the defendants, who had received premiums on the policy for many years, [should be entitled to refuse to fulfil the contract they had entered into and to retain the money in their own pockets. It was only in the event 6; idle. Florence Mitsbrick being released that she could ever be benefited by the ,Money, which would be administered by the executors of the deceased in the first place for the benefit of his children. The Married Women's Property Act did not affect the que.dion in any way m alter, the rights oi the wife, and under the terms of the Abolition of Forfeitures Act a convict was prevented from enjoying the oenetit of any right until either the expiration of his sentence or his releaee Irma prison. The Solicitor-General, who appeared for tho in. surance company, remarked that two other policire of insurance on the life of Mr. Maybrick had already been paid W the executors. Sir C. Russell said that unless Florence May. brick's name had been mentioned in the policy there could have been no pretence whatever for diiputing it. Ili was not IS though Mr. Maybriok, a party to the policy, bad been guiby of an act that rendered the policy payable earlier than it would otherwise have been. _ _ .  Lord Justice Lopes : It is contended on the other side that she caused the policy to be payable by her own felonious act. The Solicitor. General, on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the action was not maintainable, on the ground that it woul I be against public policy to allow a felon to obtain a benefit from the consequences of her felonious act. The Master of the Rolls : Would it be a public policy that after a man had paid £5OO a yoar to an insurance otlxi for forty years on a policy on his oven life, that because he was murdered sue cornpany should be allowed to put the whole 911111 into their own pockets? Why should they make an undue profit in such a case! The :Solicitor-General submitted that the executors, if they recovered, would be obliged to hold the money in trust for Florence Maybrick, and therefore that she might eventually benefit by the coir=equences of her felonious act. The Master of the Rolls: But what have you, the insurance office, got to do with that? You have received the premiums, and why should not you fulfil your contract? It will he for the Courts to determine what shall become of the money. The case was not concluded when the Court adjourned. The case was continued on Tuesday. The Solicitordleneral, in continuation of his argument upholding the decision of the Court below, maintained that the money could only be paid to Flore,:ce Maybrick, the person in whose favour the policy was made. Lord Justioe Lopes : I should have thought that the money could only be paid to the executers. The Solicitor-General: And they would hold it in trust for her, contrary to public policy. Sir C. Russell, in reply, maintained that the policy in its inception was perfectly valid, and that the question of public policy could not arise between the executors and the defendants so as to relieve the latter from their contractual obligations. .  At the conclusion of the arguments their lordships took time to consider.