U. B. Mutual Aid Soc. v. O'Hara

Citations

• 120 Pa. 256
• 13 A. 932
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 478

Syllabus

<p>1. When a defence is admissible against a recovery on a life policy upon the ground that the assured was a man of intemperate habits, it is competent to ask a witness whether he had ever seen him under the influence of liquor, and whether he saw him drink more than one drink, as steps towards evidence to establish a habit of intemperance.</p> <p>2. It is also competent, after evidence that the assured was in the habit of getting under the influence of liquor for days after each pay day, to show that on such occasions “ he came home and behaved uproariously, just as an uproarious drunken man does and abused his family,” as evidence tending to show intemperate habits.</p> <p>3. It is not error to refuse proof by an inexpert witness that the assured was afflicted with a special disease, but it is error to refuse proof by the same witness that he observed in the assured a condition which was in fact a symptom of the disease.</p> <p>4. An interrogatory, “Have you had any medical attendance within the last year prior to this date ? If so, for what disease ? Give name and address of the doctor in full,” was answered in the negative: Held, that it was error to refuse a point that if the jury found the assured had had any medical attendance within the year, the plaintiff could not recover.</p>