Ma. NEELE.—The application of Lady Caroline Neeld against her husband,
for a divorce, a MenSa et thoro, has been dismissed by the Con sistory Court. Dr. Lushington held, that nothing but actual violence, or the apprehension of violence, would justify the Court in interfering; amid that none of the allegations of Lady Caroline were sufficient to support either charge. Several more letters were read previous to the decision ; but the meeting of Parliament leaves no room nor inclination for pri- vate squabbles. Dr. Dodson having made an affidavit in Court, that Mr. Neeld meant to fight a duel with one of Lady Caroline's brothers, !Ur. Neeld appeared at Bow Street on Tuesday, and entered into recogni- zances to keep the peace towards Mr. W. Ashley and all his Majesty's sttb.- jects. According to Mr. Neeld's statement, the facts mentioned by Dr. godson respecting fa quarrel with another brother of Lady Caroline, are not true. Lady Caroline, we suppose, must return to her loving and beloved husband, or support her state as she best may without him. There seems to have been a game of diamond-cot-diamond. between them, the one playing for gold, the other for honour ; but the wealthy attorney knew how to keep his sovereigns ; and whatever honour the aristocratic bride possessed, she seems to have determined that her plebeian husband should not share in it. There is comfort for the poor and the untitled in these exhibitions.
INSURANCE OFFICES.—A case of some importance was tried on Theirs- day, in which the Promoter Life Insurance-office Were plaintiffs ; the object was to recover 832/. Is. 6d, alleged to have been improperly paid on a policy of insurance to a tradesman in Newgate Street, named Boyle. The insurance was effected on the life of a young woman, named Sim- son, who at the time kept a school at Kennington ; the referees for the state of her health were her own brothers,—a fact which was concedled_ from the office. It was proved, that she was in a bad state of health ;that eitU of the referees considered her to be afflicted with cancer in the womb ; and that his only object in getting the insurance effected was to raise a sum of money for himself. That the insurance was entirely fraudulent, there seemed indeed not the slightest doubt ; the only ques- tion was, whether the party sued was cognizant of the fraud. The Jury found, that he was not ; but they found at the same time, that the policy had not been legally assigned over to him. A verdict was taken for the plaintiffs, subject to the question whether a legal assignment was neces- sary to recovery.
[We think the law with respect to boat fiele holders, requires investi- gation. Supposing no doubt to be entertained of the legality of the transfer in the above case, still, the insurance being fraudulently ob- tained, in equity no payment was due by the office. But, says the law, the right of a boni i fide holder must lie protected. Why ? Is not the right of one man as deserving of protection as that of another ? Why should A be punished in order to save B, when both A and B have been deceived by the misrepresentations of C? It is affirmed that great damage to trade would ensue if the right of boat fide holders were not respected ; has any one of those who so argue ever attempted an esti- mate of the damage ? Common sense would say that where two or more parties had been equally cheated, the loss ought to be an average ore.]
Previous page
