The Sun. — 1850-01-04 (London, England)

SECRETARY.-111. M. Diosy, private secretary to Louis Kossuth, end formerly editor of the Hungarian paper Metyyar• Zsido, has recently arrived in London. M. Diosy accompanied Kossuth in his flight as far as Transylvania.—Jewish Chronicle.  But let them consider the inconvenience which the abolition of the rule would occasion, in not being in a position to depend upon the payment of premiums, if no penalty was attached to the observance of the rule. They would also lose the interest on their money, which was an important consideration in the present high price of the funds. Mr. TARRANT considered that there might be some cases in which it was desirable that the board should have the power to rescind the fines. He begged to move that the directors in any case have the power, if they see good reason, to rescind the fines payable under the rules for the non-payment of premiums, which was seconded by Mr. Bell. After some discussion, the motion was withdrawn, the opinion of the majority of the members present being opposed to it. Upon rule 28, which has reference to policy-holders going abroad, The CHAIRMAN said the board, after consulting the prospectuses of nearly all the assurance offices of London, proposed the rule as amended. A AIFIABER said whilst he believed the alteration was a step in the right direction, and he gave his cordial approbation to it, yet, on the other hand, the additional premium might check the enterprise of young men, who believed they might better their fortunes in another land. Re himself had had to pay an office 251. over and above his ordinary premium, and he hoped the time was not far distant when the names of places in policies of assurance would be abolished altogether.—(Cheers.) Mr. RATRAY (the actuary) proposed the addition of " not being seafaring men," which was adopted. Mr. TOOLE inquired if, in the event of his holding a policy on the life of a person who, without his knowledge or that of the board, went abroad and died beyond the prescribed limits, the policy would be paid. Some discussion ensued upon this point, but no definite determination was arrived at. It was understood that if a person assured in the office violated the conditions prescribed in his policy that he forfeited his interest in it, and destroyed the interest held in it by any one else. It was understood that the board was vested with a discretionary power in such cases. The rule, as amended, was unanimously adopted. The CHAIRMAN said the following rule was a very important one, and he believed it would operate most beneficially : " Policies will become void if the person whose life has been assured shall die, by suicide, by duelling, or by the hands of justice. But such policies shall not, however, be deemed void so far as regards any other person or persons having a bona fide interest therein, but upon due proof being given, the association will pay or allow the amount of such interest, to such person or persons as may be legally entitled to receive it ; any balance of such policy shall be forfeited, but the managers shall have power, after due consideration of the circumstances of the case, and having especial reference to the length of time the party has been assured, to pay the whole or any part of such balance to the family of the deceased in such manner, and in such proportion as they may deem fit; in like manner, should any person assured upon his own life die as aforesaid, at a time when his policy was in his own possession, the managers shall have power in their discretion to pay the whole or any part of such policy to his widow, children, or other relatives as above mentioned." Mr. RATRAY explained that this rule was of the greatest advantage, as it would have the effect, in the event of a person laying violent hands upon his life, of enabling the person interested in the policy (due notice thereof having been given) to receive the amount, as if the assured had not died by his own hand. If the policy were in the hands of the suicide no benefit would accrue ; but the managers were, he thought, properly vested with the power, if they saw good reason, of placing the family of the deceased in the same position as if he had died a natural death.