*1 Bieux, & De Buckley Greene, Neely, Withers, G. contra. Aiken, Arthur G. Seals LIFE INSURANCE LIBERTY NATIONAL 37346. v. COX. COMPANY Judge. This was a suit additional in- recover Carlisle, demnity on account accidental death of the insured on two policies policies life insurance. of the an One contained provision exclusion under the additional benefits that where from such bene- death resulted suicide whether sane insane provided, fits would not be and the other contained self-destruction, exclusion that death where resulted from insane, provided. whether sane or such -benefits would not be The evidence showed that deceased took his 22-caliber (the stating plain- rifle and of the house to his went out wife tiff) going hunting; stopped that he was that he iii the back dog yard squatted petting down Boxer and was last his engaged right the rifle in hand and thus some seen his shot, heard the fatal five or ten minutes before the witnesses hearing shot, the witnesses found the and that de- mortally fired lying back woun'ded a bullet ceased his testimony that the insured had range. at close There was and the evi- an intention to suicide never evidenced commit difficulties affirmatively that he had no dence otherwise showed There apparently induce such an intent. was which would accidentally gun defective and could be merely by being jolted, and that the cause of introduced stated The found for self-inflicted. fatal wound was for a new trial the defendant made a motion plaintiff and ground am- one addition of which was amended ’ here is to exception and the plifying general grounds, Held: denying motion. policy exclusion of “self-destruction” as tenn provision of the second indemnity under double .benefits self-destruction, intentional to mean policy will be construed “suicide.” synonymous with word is and when so construed Colonial &c. Ins. Co. v. Croom, 554). 2d Accidental self-destruction not legally sui cide. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Durden, (5) presumes law never suicide, but on the contrary, legal presumption suicide. While the *2 proof burden of was on the plaintiff, the direct as evidence to the facts in case,' by this when presumption, aided the against suicide, sufficient jury to the authorize to find that the deceased died accidentally within the meaning of that term as in the. policy sued on. true This is notwithstand ing the death certificate introduced in evidence which showed that the cause of the insured’s death was due to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. This merely evidence conflict, created a but did finding not demand a the death was suicide. See Mutual Burson, App. Ins. Co. v. (179 859 Life 390); Standard Life Bentley, App. I Co. v. Jefferson ns. 272 50); Metropolitan S. v. Kennedy, E. Ins. Co. 55 Ga. 554 The trial court in did not err trial, denying the motion for a on the grounds new and special ground. the one Judgment Gardner, J., Townsend, J., P. and concur. affirmed. Rehearing

Decided October denied November 10, 1958.

Wm. A. Ingram,, plaintiff

Neel & Ault, J. Neel, M. Jr., contra. Rehearing.

On Motion for plaintiff Counsel for the in error in rehearing a motion for insist proof of the cause of death and that the death suicide, was due to presumption the disappears, and presumption that the death was accidental cannot plaintiff be used to aid the in proving that the death was acci- dental in the face of the showing that the death was due to suicide. they And contend that the death certificate controlling finding evidence and a demands that the death was argument ignores suicide. The thus advanced the distinc- proof tion between of thereof, a matter and mere and overlooks the fact that the question resolution of the of whether particular exclusively evidence amounts proof to of a fact lies jury Thus, the province to decide. rules

within Ittner, in N. Y. Ins. Co. v. announced such cases as law 522) (1) (200 by error, plaintiff Ga. S. E. relied on in charge as appropriate jury, a to the never perhaps while by procedure to be followed theless, are rules which relate resolving questions, been laid down jury in and have these determining analyzing and an aid whether by the courts as in respect. in In the duty this jury its properly has evidence of whether or not the facie analysis, final in certificate in death, cause as set out suicide, was was due to the death of the insured .overcome by evidence all the question facts circumstances was by to be decided on consideration of all the evidence. give weight importance To to the death as certificate the evidence of the cause of death contended for virtually permit attending physician error would be person making very other a death decide the out certificate to being do' jury. issue tried This we not believe was ever *3 result to be reached that a intended the decisions death. facie evidence cause of jury having of the insured decided that wound, intentionally to an inflicted before no¡ say evi finding, it must there court can reverse In the instant this court unable to sustain it. dence not authorized. say jury’s verdict was

Rehearing denied. 37408. LEVY et al. v. LOGAN. Judge. Logan individually, and Levy, Annie sued Eva

Nichols, as, Bank, trustee of the & estate Southern National Citizens hus- Levy, of the life her Alexander to recover the value building painting allegedly killed. while band who was and tenants in allegedly owners the defendants were which filed demurrers The defendants common. plaintiff made “plea petition. in bar” and a 1958, August 1, “plea in bar.” On oral motion to dismiss mo- sustaining the oral the trial rendered a court