Thе defendant insured the life of John Oonnor, deceased, for the benefit of plaintiff. In answer to questions contained in the application for insurance, dated October 7, 1894, the assured stated that he did not have syphilis, and that he had not been a patient at any hospital, and that he resided at number 1403 North Seventh street, city of St. Louis. The defendant averred that the answers were untrue; that at the time the insurance was applied for the deceased did havе syphilis; that he had previously been treated for it at the St. Louis Hospital, and that he died from the effects of the disease.- The falsity of these answers was the only controversy at the trial. All other questions entitling plaintiff to recover were conceded. The judgment was for plаintiff and the defendant has appealed.
The defendant introduced as a witness Dr. M. J. Epstein, who testified that in 1893, he was resident physician at the city hospital in St. Louis. He identified the record kept by the officials of the hospital concerning the case of one John Oonnor. Rеfreshing his memory from the record, he testified that on the second day of November, 1893, a man by the name of John Oonnor was admitted to the hospital, and that he treated him for syphilis; that he was born in Ireland; that he was forty-one years old; was a single man, and lived at number 1403 North Seventh street in the
The first assigment of error pertains to the refusal of the court to admit in evidence the record keрt by the officers of the city hospital. The hospital is a city institution,, and the ordinances require the managers to keep a registery of all cases, etc. The defendant has citеd no case that supports the assignment. In the case of St. Louis v. Arnot,
The court refused to give the following instruction asked by the defendant, and of which it complаins:
“The jury are instructed that if they believe, from the evidence, that prior to the time John Oonnоr, deceased, applied for and obtained the policy of insurance sued on, he had been treated as a patient in the city hospital for syphilis and afterwards died of thе same disease, then they will find for defendant.”
This instruction was well enough, but the circuit court in its charge to the jury fully covered the same ground. The issues were simple and easily understood, and the jury under the instructions given by the court was bound to understand them. Hence the defendant has no room for complaint.
The court refused to give the following instruction asked by the defendant.
“The jury are instructed that, in this case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that John Oonnor, whe was at the city hospital from November 2nd to December-6th, 1893, was not the John Oonnor insured.”
This instruction was properly refused. The vice in it is that it assumes as a fact that there was a man by the-name of John Oonnor in the city hospital.
Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.