The Carmarthen Weekly Reporter

Interesting Insurance Case at Car- marthen, LENGTHY TRIAL AT THE ASSIZES. VERDICT FOR THE PLAIXTITF. APPLAUSE IX COURT. It the Carmarthenshire AiZ:8 0:1 Monday, before Mr Justice Wruht and a special jury, Mrs Mary Ellis, of the Old Plough IUD, Carmar- then, sued the Scottish Employers Liability and Accident Assurance Company" for x. 1,000 Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C.. M.P., and Mr John Loyd Morgan, M P. instructed by Mr Thomas Walters, Carmarthen), appeared for the plaintiff end Mr Bo v-n Rotunds, Q.C., aud Mr?> I Evans, 31.P. (insfrnced by Mr VV Howell, Llaneily), for the defendant company. Mr John Loyd Morgan said that the c :se arose out of the fuct' that the deceased David Eliio; had contracted under a policy of insurance into which he KM'entered wi ll tlu, ddcndant compauy that the iaUer were to pay his executors £ 1.000 ia case he came to his death by an accident. The plaintiff in the present action was Mary Ellis, the adminis- tratis of deceased and the latter had come to his death through being thrown :rum a gig. The defendant c,mpr.ny alleged that they were not bo-inc1 to pay the money because (1) thy deceased had made a declaration that he was a man of temperate ha! its, which declaration was part of the conditions 01 assurance, and was ot true (2) that the accident which caused the death ot the deceased was brought, on by his intoxication, and (3) that the deceased had debited himself in the policy as a hotel keeper, v. hen, as a matter of fact, he was a caUie dealer. Mr Abel Thomas said that in this case it seemed to him that they would have very little to prove. The action was brought under what was called an accidental policy of in-urauce. Tha deceased paid an am.uai premium of i:4 and in the eeut. of his t dyi-ig froin of an aceiuent the company bound themselves to pay the sum of ;E lo his widow. The defeudant hud a right, if they chop-s-, to urge and to prove that there was some reason why the ought not to be paid. In tins case it seemed to him (Mr A.* el liiomas) that there was only one thiog which the plaintiff required to do in order to prove her case and that was to produce the letters of administration which she hau taken out on the es.ate of the deceased; be ause the whole of the rest of the case had been admitted on the pleadings. 15 was admitted that the policy was entered into by thedensascd man i was admitted that the po'icy was for EI,Ct)O it was admitted thlit deceased had corns to his death by being thrown ont of a trap. The only defence w hich the Insurance Company coul' set up, and wh'eu they were, themselves required to prore. was that there were certain exceptions in the policy upon which they were tnti'led to r, ly, and which would relieve them from the liability of paying the plaintiff the sum of ii,OGO. The company alleged that, thn cause of death was that the deeeu3 d man was intoxicated at the time cf the accident. It was extreme'y difficult to prove that he was not intoxicated; it was extremely easy-if it were trne-to prove that he was intoxicated. With regard to the other defence, he was brand to say that it struck him as being almost ridiculous—that the deceased not a hotel proprietor. Deceased was described in the policy as being of the" Plough Iun, Carmarthen." He (Mi Abel Thomas) hiid been trying in bi3 own mind to get up a definition of the distinction between a "hotel" and an "inn." He was unable to find any distinction between the two. A hotel (hostel) was crigiimdy the French name for an English inn ana as far as he could understand there was no distinction between the two. An inn was a place where people are lodged and fed and anybody who had been to the Plough Inn would eee that it bore out that description. It had four situng-roou.s and seven bed-rooms for the accommodation ot guests who C'lme there If it became necessary, witnesses would be called to prole that at times many as 20 guests wera put ip at the P.cugh at other limes—when there were fairs-the proprietress took rooms in adjoining houses, for which sheprid, on J at. which the guests put up sometimes on a fair morning there were as many as Go people breakfasting in the inn. To suggest, the-.eforc Mr Bowen Rowlands said he was bound tn say that they drew no distinction between a hotel- keeper" and an II innkeeper." What they con- tended was that eleceastd followed the occupation Qf cattle-dealer the other point was that be was intoxicated ard exposed himself wilfully to rik.. The Judgc It soeres La me that it is Mr Bowen Rowlands who ought to lirg;n. Mr Abd Tho ngs I have only to begin to p-me the letters of administration. Before I sit down 1 would remind my learned f:erd that the question is not whether the (jcccrbcd was ot habits. The (question on the ph-ad.rgs it whether he was sober or drunk at the time ot the accident. Mr Bowen Rowlands, reading from the declara- tion made before the policy was issued, stated thu the Company wis not liable if tin deceased "wilfully, wantonly, or negligently" exposed himself to danger or for any accident caused by hi, being in a elate of :n oxicution or iminuj. Mr Alel Tfiotiia, said ihat declaration could only be proved in one wa}', and that was b\ the persot. who could prove the handwriting. His Lordship, could guess why he pI r Abel Thoma.) wanted that person in the Ivx. Mr Bowen Ro-ah-is I refer to the policy and the policy only. The Judge said ihat the policy stated on the face of it that this declaration was the basis of the contract. Mr Abel Thomas tiaid hns position was this. lie claimed under the policy ar;cl the policy pu:e and simple. They were entitled to succeed under the policy if the deceased came to his death by ihe accident. His Icamöd friend set it up as a d. t nee that the deceased man signed something which not part of the policy. E^en it there hid been no declaration, the policy might have been issued. The Judge The policy on the face of it says that the declaration is the basis of the contract. Mr Abel Thomas said that all he had to do wa,, to put in th policy and to prove that the dehth wa, due to an accident under the policy. It was quite true tint the ether side had plead d the declaration it was for them to rely on that, The Judge: I cannot see that we havo the contract before us until we have the basis as well as the constructor. Mr Abel -i'hcmis I don't care what the bnsis is the policy has betn granted to us by the Insurance Company. The Judge I do not, know what the terms are. Mr Abel Thomas Any terms on which they rely they can prove. It is not for me to prove them. It is the policy I urn proceeding on-not on any statement the deceased man made. The agent who took the declaration knew the deceased man, and was well awaie of his circumstances. Assuming that the declaration had been mislaid, would it fall upon the claimant in this action to prove that it had been taken? If jour Lords-hip rules so, we should be unable to proceed by piodueing the only document, which wo hold and on which we sue. This seems to put the claimant, under a policy in a very awkward position if ho has to prouuee more than the docu cent which was signoi by the Insurance Compary. lIe relies upon thar, and nothing else They rely uii,,n some other document, which they say is inconsistent with it. I am quite prepared to iely on the policy itself. The Judge: We have not the whole contract before us we have only the top storey. Mr Abel Thomas We have sufficient to entitle us to succeed. We rely on the policy and not on any answers which were made. The Judge said that the poiiey was only the top storey of the contract. If the bot-tom storey did cot exist, the top storey must come down. Ihe declaration was an essential part ot the coiii racf. Mr Bowen Rowlinds, in openit'? the case. said that counsel who occupied the potion iie did were always placed in a very diepdvautageous position on account (f the arts of advocacy which were practised by his friend on the other side. Appeals were always made in these cases to the financial position of a corporation na opposed to that of an individual. They said in effect—they did not say so in as many words, because the learned Judges would not allow that-that the action was brought by a person who was poor against a Corporation Mhich WDB rich and tyiar.r.ieal, and which was mikin* use of its vast resources, in order to evade the discharge of its just liabilities When again the appeal was made on behalf of a soirowiu, v.idow, who was entitled to the sympathetic con- sideration of the jury, the case became much more embarrassi- g. He felt sure, however, that in spite of thi,, th-r. the jury would appreciate the <:I\"C at its proper value. A Corp oration was only, after all, an aggregation of individuals, each quite as deserving ui his individual capacity as the plaintiff He hoped. therefore, that the jury would consider the case uPogsther apart from the argument s -(,r substitutes for arguments-which his friend's ir.fiunmat ry language might tend to make then-. give weight to. It would be an intolerable po.-itiou if a Company, wun it saw that I(e was a jusl ground, did noi iv-iet the claim fo: the ben- lis the o.ber pooplo v };o were insured in that. Corpoia- tion. The deceased man, David Ellis, btcarce insured in ihe d■■Cendant compmy on the 5ti. Pe ein! er, 1823 h" paid the annual premium then, and two a U:UM y retriums ther-. after. Just afier the I"') m.}Jlt of he thid IlJlDnÜ !¡rcn.iil.wl. the deceased came by bis death under circumstance.* which would be described by the witnesses. To the ordinary difficulty of this class of cases, there was superadded auclher difficulty which was peculiar to this case the deieme of the C. mpany was mainly based en the contention that the deceased was drimk at the time of the accident, so as to violate the conditions set forth in the declara- tion that he was a man of temperate habits." It was disagreeable—especially when a man was dead—to call witnesses to prove that he was drunk. The Judge esked if the point was that the deceased wa" drunk at the time of the accident, or that he was generally a man of intemperate habits, contrary to the declaration. Mr Bowen Rowlands Both my lord.-The learned counsel then went on to say that before any person carried through an iasutunoj contract, he had to answer certain questions. Since a certain Scotch casi had been decided in the House of Lords any answer given to these questions was taken to be u material part of the contra t. In this case the form was tilled up tliu;s :Narne-Davii El.is. Occupation Hotel Proprietor. Working or Sul)e.-inteuding Stiperip-touditig." That meant that the person assured did no work except super- intending the hotel. An assurance company had various classes of risk?, and charged different premiums to different people, because there were certiin occupations which were more risky and more likely to abound in deaths by accidents—or in deaths superinduced by the nature of the occupa- t: cn-tl)aii others. Thus a larger premium was required from those insuring in Class II. than in Class I. Certain classes of people were not insurable in Class 1. One of the questions asked was, Do you engage in bicycling ?" Knowing the habits of his learned friend (Mr Abel Thomas), he thought that a delicate question—(laughter)—to go into very deeply. If the deceased had been described as a cattle-dealer, the company would have exacted a higher premium than if he were described as a hotel-keeper. There were also a proviso in the policy to the effect "That no claim shall be recoverable under thes" presents for death caused by the insured being in a state of intoxica- tion." Therefore no claim could be nude good against the company if it were proved t-hat death was brought about by the deceased being intoxicated. A proviso wn3 also made excepting the liability of the Company in case the assured wilfully, wantonly, or negligently, exposed him- scif to any unne:essary danger." Supposing then that the jury thought that there was a doubt as to the deceased being drunk—and there wera many definitions of (irunkcnness-il. would be sufficient to bar the claim, if it were proved that he had need essly exposed himself to danger. So far he (Mr Bowen Rowlands) had confined himself to the proper construction of the policy. The circum- stances which brought about the death of the as-,ujcd were as fol!ows:-On the 17th December, 18-")5, the deceased started out to Lampeter fair from his home in Carmarthen with a view to making purchases of houses. If the deceased man carried on that business as a material part of the manner in which ne gwined a livelihood, or gained additional profit, then he was a horse and cattle ueuler in a sense quite sufficient to satisfy the exacting demands of the leorned counsel on the other fide (laughter). The deceased presented himself at Lampeter on the evening of the 17th December he was then in a very intoxicate! state. lie was noisy and was clamouring for drink at lust they managed to get him quieted by the piomise of rum and water-a beverage which appeared to hate a bpecial atrac ions for him (laughter). The next day he left Lampeter, and bis jou ney from the e to the place where he was tilled appeared to te in the nature of a progress from public-home to pu blic-hous.? lie left Lautpeter after having been drunk the night before. lie c, -.t,.e to Llanwn. n where he had oonie gin; he next turned up at Ailtyplaca where he had m Jre drink. At LUnybyther his arrival and dCpHI ture scemed to have caused somewhat of a sensation some of the people there remarked at fhe time tnat something would surely happen to him. At Ailtyplaca he feil in with a photographer and insisted on becoming one of tte group which was being takui This being done the photographer mounted in the carriage and drove way with the original of the photograph (laughter). The defeased was a first rate driver,havirig been at it all his life and it spoke volumes for his condition that he should have entrusted the reins on this occasion tJ a wandering j hotogtapher. Under these circumstances, they suited at Owide-masvr, where they ordered some more drink but the person who received the order refused to supply tLcrn. Inn-keepers as a tluss were rather slow to see d< unkenness but on this occasicn the innkeeper did not consider the deceased fit to have any more. At the Talald Arms they had some more drink, and then started off to the top of Gwarallt hill. Th.; deceased man who wa sitting by the side 01 the photographer—tha amateur d.iver (Iaughter)- toze up and struck the horse across the loins with a stick. The horse thereupon started down the hill, and the eaniago overturning, both its occupants were thrown out, and the deceased killed. It certainly would be very satifactory to him (Mr Bowen Rowlands) to leain that these symptoms of drunkenness, which would be spoken to by the witnesses, were wholly imaginary, aud thdt the Company wto wro-g in lesisting tie claim. But if they were leal, then the Company were right in resisting the claim When the deceased Entered into the insurance contract he described himself as b: ing of temperate habits. The application of the words could r.ot be confined to the moment in which he made the decliration of c-urse, it would t not tricks the declaration fa!t.e it the m .11 hnd got I drunk once But it would be ehown by evidence that from the year 1884 up to the time ol his death, tli3 deceased had been not "nly giving way to diink, but that his intoxicttion htel been public, and that he had been several times fined for being drunk and incapable. If any ot them contentions were proved, ttieti the jury would only be doing their duty in rtturning a verdict for the defendant. c itnpai'y. The Judge said that if nny convicti >ns were shown to have taxen place in 155)3, immediately 'eforc lh, deceased made the declaration, it would have an important bearing upon the question. The further however the drunk. n habits went back irotn 1893 their vnlue became so much the less with inerta-iiig rapidity. Mr A;cl 'j ho:nr.:> ",a:d he was quit" prepared to accept his Lord-hip's dtinition of the value of thise convittiyi, It was eliar that the word habits must hHê some definition in this case. Mr Bowen Rowlands then adduced his evidence as follows Johanna M ,igan, manageress of tho Black Lion, Lampeter, shid :-1 knew the deceased slightly. lie arrived about G p.m. on the 17th December, at the Black Li< 11. He was then veiy much the worse for drink. lie was so dtunk that I refused to give I i'a any more. I had occasion to ask him to be quiet. Mr Abel Thomas It he was as drunk as a Lord, my Loicl (laughter), what would that have to d, with the accident next day His Lordship said that of itself it was nothing bnt it would curne in as part of the case M'us Morgan, continuing, said the decease 1 was sober going away in the morning. lie had his brt akfast and had also three pennyworth of gin ar.d a gingerbecr. John Jones, ostlor of the Black Li;,11, Uany- byther, gave similar esidemo. a saw the deceased at 3 p.:r. on the 18th at Llanyhythcr he was drunk Recs also h:d a drop pretty well." Cross-examined by Mr Abel Thomas Rees was drunk I saw him catching hold of the horse's bead. I saw Mr Eilis out of the trap by him- self he was a heavy man of eighteen or nineteen st4 ne weight. That is he in the photograph (pro- duced). He was swearing and cursing Mr Abel Thomas Don't people in Cardiganshire curse and swear when they are sober r Mr Bowen Rowlands Not when I was up there (laughter). Witness, continuing, said he did n..t see deceased get back into thn trap. lie was not sober. Mr Abel Thomas That is another matter. Was he drunk r Witncsl3 said he believed deceased was drunk he would be able, however, to manage his affairs, Juhu E ans, Red Lion Iun, L'anllwni, said liecfhsed came to his house at mid-day and had 3d worth of gin. He was quite sober t;nd had some bread and cheese and pick'es. Mr Abel Thomas acked how riuch thrtepenn orth of giu was ? Wituess: Well; about one sixteenth of a pint (lauijhter). Sir Abel 'Inomis hid soma discussion at this point with the Judge as to the strength of gin, which he malutuined was generally about 15 under proof. David D,ivie. Ailtyplaca Arras, deceased called at his house that afternoon. He had three- penn'orth of gin he was quite sober. Thomas Darifs, chemist) Llanybyther, gave similar evidence. Deceased was tober; bat was rather rowdy. William Jenkins, saddler, I lanybyther, said he knew the deceased by sight. Tie saw him on this day in front of the Biack L:ou, Llanybyther. He saw him for abnut an hour and a half. He looked as if he had been drinking heavi'y. Ciosj-examincd by Mr Abel Thomas Deceased drove away. He was driving differently from a sober man He was driving quickly and was whipping the pony. He was making use of bad language also. I had not eec-r a drop that after- noon. I had not tasted it either (laughter). John Davies, Givrde-nia-vr Inn, near Llany- byther, said he saw deceased and Rees driving along the road after 4 p.m. on the ISth December. He did not take them any drink. Rees was driving whet, they went away deceased was driving before that. Deceased said he would pay Rees to drive him to Carmarthen. Cross-examined The pony was restless when it was allowed it went veiy fast. It was pulling. lie took it that deceased was drunk because he was lying asleep in the bottom of the trap. Otherwise he showed no signs of drink. Mrs Davies, wife of the last witness, gavesimiliar evidence. They asked for two glasses of gin the refused to supply them. She said that deceased was nor right everybody could see what was the mtitter with him. It was plain enough. Mr Bowen Rowlands: What conclusion did you come to in regaid to him ? Witness I came to the conclusion that I would not give him anything to drink (laughter). After a good deal of fencing, witness said she thought that deceased was not ,o*, er. She heard Rees agree to drive deceased. Rees lived at Xeunact, Llanllwni.. Cross-examined by Mr Abel Thomas I never had a quarrel with deceased. I did not tell Mr Evan Morgan this morning that I would not have supplied the deceased drunk or sober. Evan Williams, Llanllwni, said he and the land- lord of the Talard Arms were together on the 18th inst. at the house of the latter, when the deceased and Rees drove up. The house was near the place where the accident happened. They had a pint of beer and three-penny-worth of gin at the Talard Arms. Deceased was high spirited at the time. Mr S. T. Evans I am not asking you about his moral qualities what was his condition as to sobriety Witness lie wa3 not quite sober. A quarter of an hour after he drove away someone came bact and told us lie had been killed. Cross-examined by Mr Abel Thomas I know the Talard load. It is very steep and at the steepest part the road turns at right angles. That is where the accident happened. Thomas Rees, photographer, said he knew deceased. Deceased was a cattle dealer and n public-house keeper and he knew the county well Witness's house was on the road to Llanybyther. He remembered being at the Talard Arms he had a pint of beer and deceased had some gin. The place where the accident happened was about a quarter of a mile from the Talard Arms. Just as they were going down Gwarallt hill, deceased gave a tap to the pony, which, thereupon, ran down the hill at full gallop. Witness did nit remember much more they 'vero both shot out of the carriage at the angle of the road. When he got up ElJis was dead. Deceased was a little merry, bus nothing what might be called drunk." He was not merry the whole way he was cross part of the way. Cross-examined by Mr Abel Thomas The land- lady at Gwrde-mawr began talkin about some old account that had not been setthd kirir-e the last fair. Ttiat was the reason wny she would not supply them. Deceased was sober enough to know what he wa>< doii g; witness took the photograph (produced). At 3 p.m. on the 19th December it would require an exposure ot about ten seconds to take a photograph. For the last three or four years witness hud no leascn to believe that deceased was a cattle dealer. P.C. Jones, Pencader, eaid he had often seen deceased drhe about the roadj. lIe believed deceased was a cattle dealer. He renumbered meeting deceased at Newcastle-Emlyn Letween 1886 and 1S92. lis alwaya understood deceased to be of dmnken habits j he hai seen him in elrink more than once. P.S Harries, of the Carmarthen Borough Police Force, said he knew deceased. From 1893 he knw deceased well he would i.ot describe him as a man of intemperate habits. He could not speak to any particular occasion during 1S93 on which he had seen deceased the worst for drink. He was present in September, 1889, when the deceased was convicted ot drunkenness whilst in charge of a hcree and tart fiom that time on Ellis might have been d. ur.k a week and six mouths saber, Cross-examined bv Mr Abel Thomas lie had seen Ellis drunk since he got married he had seen him the worse of drink in GuilJhaIl square, about two years ago. D. Lloyd, clerk to the magistrates of Tregaron and Lampeter, proved dec ased to have been con- victed of drunkenness in October, 18S0, and in March, 1884. P.S. John Jones, Llaneily, said he knew deceased as a cattle dealer, from 1873 until the time of his death. IVitneiss always regarded him as a man of intemperate habits. Cross-examined by Mr Abel Thomas He had seen deceased about six times during the last three years. He considered him of intemperate habits then witness saw him drunk at Lisnon about tiacen months ago. The J ud g,, asked if the learned counsel could not concede something in the "er so as to s ive time. It was clear that the deceased could not take credit to himself for bemg a man of strictly temperatJ habits. Mr Abel Thomas said he (,I:u'd prove that the deceased had been of very temperate habits lately. Mr Gregory, chief inspector of the defendant company, proved the terini of the insurame contract. Cross-examined by Mr Abel Thomas The po!icy was carried through by Mr J M Brockie, who was then the local representative of the company. Mr Abel Thomcs here rrad ihe correspondence between the local agent (Mr J M Brockie) and the Inspector in regard to the insurance proposal, It appeared that the company had not at first wished to take the deceased as a C'ass I risk as a hotel- keeyer, but the local agent had brought pressure to bear on them, so that they waived their original objeclicn Mr Gregory admitted that the oorrcs- poi djnee had taken place. This conclude] the case for the co npany. Mr Abel Thomas said that there was no evidence whatever to go to the jury that the deeeifed had come to his d?ath through intoxication. The Jadge said that the issue would line to go before the jury but he must say that it was about as weak a case as ;ver he had heard. Mr Abel Thomas said that there was no evidence whatever that the deceased was of intemperate habits. The Judge said the remark which he had made about the uther point would apply also to this. Mr Abel Thomas I also sy that there is no evidence that, at the time ot his death, he was anything but a hotel-keeper. The Judge: I must also express the same opinion on that. Mr Abel Thomas called as his only witness, Mrs Mary Ellis, who said she was married to the deceased in October, 1892. Previous to that time deceascd was a horse dealer. He was r.ot a horse dealer after that. He used to buy and sell the horses required for the posting establishment at the Plough. Deceased also kept 40 acres ot accom- modation land near Carmarthen. He used to drink more than was good for him after he got married he did net drink so much. He managed the Plough after his marriage. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen Rowlands: We were married at Bath. I knew him years oefore that. On the Friday before he was killed he had a glass, and was a bit merry." He was not in the habit of coming home "merry" from every fair to which he wtiit. We kept about 14 horses at the Plough. Mr Bowen Rowlands, in his closing speech, said that with all duo respect to the 0 irlion of the learned judge, he held that the jury had a right to give their own opinii 11 on the facts of the case of which they were the sole judges; and that in cases like this, where local knowledge as to the methods o. driving, etc, had to be considered, he was guilty of no impropriety in suggesting that the opinion of twelve men mas worth considering. He had refrained from putting many questions to the widow because she waa a WOlD an-nut a New Woman—(laughter) —or she should have ro respect from him. In this case it was difficult to get lit the facts of the case, for—apart from the bias which always entered into an action between a private individual and a Corporation—the witne-sts con- soiously or unconsciously, coloured their evidence when iiie reputation of the deceased hu&band of the plitititiff was at Ftike. It WAS quite evident that the deceased had been very drunk the day before the accident, ar.d that would render him all the mote susceptible to the llf xt day's debauch. His learned triend (Mr Abel Th',ma«) had endeavoured to tlnow u. good d :01 of discredit on giu ts Ul article of intoxication. He w. uld not dispute thft Gin might be a very har mless bevcrjge, but if a man had been drunk on the ii;g,it before he should have --if not in the full light on the subject possessed by hi<» lenrmd friend, at least, in that lesser illuminati; 11 with which he was giltcel -that it would put the m-n drunk. There must have been some strong reason to induce a man who was a capital whip to entrust the reins to a photographer who had been engaged in that interesting occupa- tion for twenty-two years, and who knew nothing of horses except by taking them as part of a scene (ltughtc-r). It was the blow struck by the deceased which caused the horse to start off, end so brought about his death. If he were 11 >t intoxicated he would not have struck the horse in the most dangerous part of the iosd. It was the fact of the d-ceased being intoxicated which was the ?me of his conduct, and his conduct was the cause of his death. Mr Abel Thomas said that when he WAS engaged in cases of this kind, it always puzzled him to know what Insurance Companies meant by" accidents." When an assured person was killed, the Company always started some wonderful theory to prove that he did not die by eccident, but by something else. It would appear from the closing speech of his learned friend, that the Company had abandoned the plea that the deceased had been a cattle-dealer. Inaterd of paying up the money like honest people, the Company tr.ed to get out of their liability in a mean, shabby way, by raking up the dead man's past. All the witneeees who had been called, with the exception of two, said that the deceased was not drunk on the djy in question. It was clear, from the evidence which the Company had them- selves adduced, that the deceased died by means of an accident, over which he had no control. The Judge, in his summing up, instructed the jury that they were bound to return a verdict for the phiniiff ex iept they considered thru the defen- dants had fully made out one of their three reasons why the money ought not to be paid. The fact of a man being convicted of drunkenness was no evidence that he was of intemperate habits. The object of convicting a man of drunkenness was to make him of temperate habits and very often the sharp lesson took effect. The matter to consider under that head was whether be was of temperate habits at the time he made the declaration in 189.3. With regard to the fact that the deceased was a cattle dealer, very little evidence had been called. With regard to the third point, he did not think there was any special evidence to show that the deceased had come to his death by being intoxicated. It was not enough to find that he exposed himself to danger by being driven home by a photographer but in order to return a verdict for tho defendants, they must be satisfied that his being so driven was the cause of his death. It was rat er far-fetched to imagine that his death was brought about in that way. The burden cf proof lay on the Company, who were required to make out their case before they could be relieved from the liability to pay the money. The Jury retired for 20 minutes. On returning into court, the foreman (Mr Joseph Joseph, Llan- gennech) said. We find for the plaintiff on the three points." The verdict was received with some amount of applause, which \a, however, immediately suppressed. II is Honour gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs.