The Maybrick insurance case was on Monday decided by Mr.
Justice Denman and Mr. Justice Wills in favour of the Company which refused to pay an insurance policy effected on the life of Mr. Maybrick. The ground for this decision is one well established in the law,—namely, that it is contrary to public policy that persons should be allowed to benefit by their own crimes. If the money were paid, Mrs. Maybrick would 'be benefiting by her crime, and therefore the decision was against her, and any one claiming through her, since she could not assign to any other person a better claim than she possessed herself. The chief precedent governing the case, though not quite on all-fours, is that of Fauntleroy, who insured his life and then committed a forgery, for which he was hanged. The Judges there decided that the felon's executors could not claim the money. It is to be noted that the present decision was given on an order made last March that the questions of law should be first argued upon a case which stated thus the "questions of law" to be raised :—" Whether, if it be proved that the said James Maybrick died from poison intentionally administered to him by the said Florence May- brick, that would afford a defence to this action." The Judges on Monday, therefore, gave their decision on the supposition that Mrs. Maybrick was guilty. In view of this fact, it is asserted that the plaintiff, the assignee of the policy, will still be able to bring the whole question of Mrs. Maybrick's guilt into Court, and will thus force the Courts to retry the murder case in a civil action. We suspect, however, that the record of the Assize Court will turn out to be conclusive evidence of Mrs. Maybrick's guilt.
Previous page
