THE BRICK CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8670, 12 September 1891, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE BRICK CASE.

Is the Queen's Bench Division, before Mr. Justice Demnnn and Mr. .Justice Wills, tho hearing of the case of Cleaver and others v. the Mutual Reserve Fund Association was resumed. The proceedings arose out of the death of Mr. James Maybrick, whose wife, Florence Maybrick, was afterwards tried before Mr. Justice Stephen, at Liverpool, and convicted of having poisoned him. The deceased, not long before his death, effected with the defendants an insurance upon his life for £2000, in favour of his wife. This policy was afterwards assigned by Mrs. Maybrick to the plaintiff, Mr. Cleaver, and after the death he was appointed by the Secretary of State administrator under the Felony Act. The two other plaintiffs, Thomas Maybrick and Michael Maybrick, had been appointod by the deceased executors of his will. These plaintiffs now sued upon the policy, and the question was whether they or any of them were entitled under the circumstances to recover the amount of it.

Sir Charles Russell, for the plaintiffs, urged that tho whole point for the court would be, was the company to be relieved from their responsibility because, as it was alleged, but not admitted by the plaintiffs, James Maybrick's death was caused by the felonious act of Mrs. Maybrick? The learned counsel proceeded to cite cases in support of his contention that the defendants were bound to fulfil their contract.

The Solicitor-tioner-d, for the defendants, submitted that the case came within tho rule laid down in Fauntleroy's case, that it would be against public policy that the plaintiffs should bo allowed to succeed in this case. The substance of the decision in Fauntleroy's case was that a person should not be allowed to come into court, and through the medium of the court profit by a crime that ho had committed. This was a claim on behalf of Mrs. Maybrick to recover £2000 because she had committed a murder.

Mr. Justice Denman, in giving judgment, said that he thought that the question which had been put to them must be answered in favour of the defendants. Thomas and Michael Maybrick brought the action, nob in their capacity as personal representatives of the deceased man, for the benefit of his estate, but that, as being his personal representatives, they had become by virtue of the Married Woman's Property Acts trustees of this policy for the benefit of Florence E. Maybrick. They, as trustees, could have no 'better position than Mrs. Maybrick herself, and if there would have been a fatal objection to her suing there would be an equally fatal objection to the executors suing in her favour. This case was much stronger than that of Fauntleroy referred to, who was executed for. forgery, because here it must be taken that the person to be benefited had brought about the death of the assured. The action was against, public policy, and the defendants were undoubtedly entitled to succeed. Judgment for the defendants ; costs of the special case to be theirs in any event.

A STARTLING HUMOUR. The Exchange Telegraph Company makes the extraordinary statement, on legal authority, that in consequence of the recent insurance action Mrs. May brick will be able to have practically a new trial in a civil court 011 the charge of murdering her husband. All that was decided by the Court of Queen's Bench in the insurance case was that the policy in her favour was void, as being against public policy, and it was merely assumed for the purpose of legal argument that had murdered her husband. According to the law, supported by a large number of decided cases, the fact of the conviction of an accused person is not proof as between other parties, and only as between the prosecutor and the prisoner. This fact will' enable Mrs. Maybrick, at the trial of the action, which is not finally disposed of, to compel the insurance company to prove that she did murder her husband, and they will have to produce the doctors and witnesses called at the trial as to the arsenical poisoning of Mr. Maybrick, and Mrs. May brick herself could be produced as a witness. Unless the insurance company withdraw t heir defence, the trial, which it is expected will take place during the November sitting, will be one of the most sensational and unprecedented on record, and will be practically a new trial of the charge of murder in a civil court.