LIFE ASSURANCES. 1167 
own life to the amount of 3000/. in the Economic Office. Thirdly, that 
Miss Elsworthy was not in a good state of health when insured, and was 
addicted to dram-drinking. 
Much conflicting evidence was adduced, as is not unfrequent in actions 
on policies of assurance. On the part of the defence, a surgeon proved 
that he had attended Miss Elsworthy, who was then ill of cholera mor- 
bus—it was in February after the policy was effected ; she recovered in 
about a fortnight. A great number of witnesses spoke to Miss Elswor- 
thy’s habits, &c., with a view to make it appear she was addicted to 
drunkenness. The jury, however, found for the plaintiff. 
The most remarkable circumstances in this case were—first, Lord 
Tenterden’s remark, that the policy of assurance on which the action 
was brought contained a clause of warranty, which he did not recollect 
to have seen in the policies of any other office ; that clause was a war- 
ranty, on the part of the plaintiff, that the person whose life was assured 
had led, and continued to lead, a temperate life. And, secondly, the 
gr astounding statement of the defendant’s counsel, that the plaintiff (a 
Vir. Ge lady of respectable family, and the widow of an officer) had insured her 
the see sister’s life in the West of England for 2700/., and in the Promoter for 
ul seas 2500/. Her father had effected an insurance on his own life, the amount 
the 93 of which descended to the plaintiff as one of his executors. The plain- 
wood bes tiff also effected an insurance on her mother’s life; and in the same 
onthe 167 year, when the two insurances for 5200/. were effected on her sister’s 
* Jute. the life the plaintiff endeavoured to insure in six other offices. Such a 
i itis mania for insurance was seldom met with. The plaintiff’s father and 
oud lu sister died of cholera, as did Miss Elsworthy, and it was strongly sus- 
Tondo fe pected that the plaintiffs mother died of the same disease. The case, 
ais eho certainly, was not without suspicion. 
© 7 tee In the Michaelmas Term following, a rule for a new trial was made 
Fh absolute, Lord Tenterden observing that the case ought to he submitted 
as #1 to another jury; and as anything that fell from his lordship might have 
| . some effect on their minds, he would not make any remarks on the evi- 
oo dence. The rule would therefore be made absolute on payment of costs 
by the defendants. 
BaRrBER, ExECUTRIX, v. MORRIS, April, 1831. 
The defendant had, in 1813, purchased an annuity of 100/. from the 
mpant, 0 Rev. Mr. Hornby, for a sum of 700. ; the annuity to cease on payment 
of the T00/. after three months’ notice. 
p For his own security, the defendant insured Mr. Hornby’s life at the 
fh om Pelican Insurance Office. 
fes maki In 1824 Hornby gave notice that he meant to pay the 7007. at the 
po, pv ONE end of three months from the date of the notice. 
The defendant then caused the policy to be sold by auction, and it 
ye was purchased by the plaintiff’s testator, an attorney, who gave 64/. for it. 
J Soro ie