Brighouse & Rastrick Gazette. — 1891-07-25 (Brighouse, West Yorkshire, England)

MAYBRICK POISONING CASE.  Before Justices Denman and Wills, in the Queen's Bench Division, on Monday, the case of Cleaver and others against the Mutual Reserve Fund Association was resumed. The question raised was whether Messrs. Thomas and Michael Maybrick, as executors under the will of their brother, the late Mr. James Maybrick, of Liverpool, were entitled to recover under a policy of life insurance for £2,000, effected by him in October, 1888, in favour of his wife, et his own legal representatives in the event of her ;lot being alive at the time of his death. Sir C. Russell, continuing his argument on behalf of the executors of the late James Maybrick, said there were only two important stipulations in the conditions at the back of the policy. The company were not to be liable to pay the £2,000 if Mr. Maybrick committed suicide, or if his death was caused by engaging in any duel, or by any violation of the law, or at the hands of justice. It was evident that neither of those conditions applied to the present case, so that the only question was whether the company were relieved of their obligations simply because the £2,000 was made payable to Mrs. Maybrick. It was not alleged that Mrs. Maybrick was aware that the policy was in existence, or that if it was in existence it was intended for her benefit; and it seemed extraordinary that the defendant company should, under the circumstances, invoke the aid of some principle of public policy for the protection of their own pockets. One could understand their contention i: the assured had done an act which it was within his power to do or not, and which precipitated the event upon which the money was payable. The representatives of an assured could not benefit by the wrongful act of the assured himself; but in the present instance it was not suggested that Mr. Maybrick put an end to his own life. The Solicitor-Gcneral (Sir E. Clarke) on behalf of the company, said the only question remaining to be argued was whether the executors of Mr. Maybrick could maintain their claim. Ile submitted that the executors had no interest in the matter at all. It was clear under the Married Woman's Property Act that the interest in the policy had not passed to them, but to the trustees of Mrs. Maybrick, so that it was precisely th.;., satrif as if she herself were now suing. Mr. Justice Wills asked whether, on the conviction of Mrs. Ma.ybrik, the interest in the policy did not form part of the husl)and's estate? The Solicitor-General contended not, and submitted that it pissed to the criminal administrator of Mrs. Maybrick herself. In justice to the defendants he felt bound to explain that they had already paid £3,000 on a policy effected by Mr. Maybrick for the bteetit of his children; but, under the circumitances, they felt obliged to refuse to pay the £2,000 on this piu.tieular policy until they had obtained the adjiidi(eion of the court. . .  At the conclusion of the arguments Justice Denman delivered judgment. It must be taken, he said, that Mrs. Maybrick murdered her husband, and the question was whether Thomas and Michael Maybrick, not as executors under their brAlier's will, but as trustees for the wife, could recover on Ow policy. Ile thought the case was absolutely covered by the Fauntleroy case, and that the respondents could not recover, death having been caused by the p(g-sou for whose benefit the action was brought, and it being contrary to public policy that such an action should be sustained.—Justice• Wills concurred. _ _ _  Judgment was accordingly entered for the defendants.