he fears she has been guilty of an old one. He may watch her; even leave open the opportunities which he finds; but he must not make new ones or lay temptations in her way." "Connive" means literally to wink at. The Century Dictionary gives as a definition : " To wink; to refrain from looking, in a figurative sense, as at a culpable person or act; give aid or encouragement by silence or forbearance; conceal knowledge of a fault or wrong." "To shut one's eyes to; wink at; tacitly permit." The Bible says that " Their wickedness God hath hitherto winked at." Will it be argued that God was willing that men should commit sin?
Since the foregoing was written, a report comes to us, in the " Albany Law Journal," 265, of a case at special term of the Supreme Court, in the city of New York (Karger v. Karger), decided by Pryor, J., which agrees with the Dennis and Morrison cases in its conclusions. The facts are stated as follows: —
"Suspecting a criminal connection between his wife and one Stein, the plaintiff concerted with the witness Wolf a scheme for detecting the defendant in the act. She was in the habit of visiting Stein at his room in Wolf's house, and the arrangement was that the plaintiff should go to the house, and Wolf ' would show it to him.' He went to the house, and was so situated that, though himself concealed, he could observe the approach of his wife. She entered the house and met Stein. Meanwhile, Wolf, with plaintiffs privity, had so disposed the company and fastened the doors as apparently to assure the defendant of security in the illicit intercourse. From the ambush in which they lay, Wolf, in company with the plaintiff, heard Stein invite the woman to his embraces, and saw them go to bed together. Then, after waiting 'two or three minutes,' the husband and witness rushed into the room and surprised the parties in the act."
The Judge observed : —
"Not only did he permit it to be done, when a look or a word from him would have prevented it; not only did he suffer it to proceed in his presence, and delay interruption until he supposed it consummated, but through the agency of Wolf he promoted and facilitated the adultery. The inference is irresistible that the plaintiff was willing that the defendant should commit the act in order that he might obtain a divorce (Morrison v. Morrison, 136 Mass. 310)." ..." It would be a dangerous principle to establish, that a husband who has suspicions of the infidelity of his wife shall be allowed to lay a train which may lead her to the commission of adultery, in order that he may take advantage of it to obtain a divorce (fierce v. Pierce, 15 Am. Dec. 2IO; 3 Pick. 299). I am aware of the decision in Robbins v. Robbins (140 Mass. 528), but cannot recognize it as an authority (33 ' Alb. Law Journal,' 401)."
OATHS. — Mr. Rogers tells us, in his agreeable paper on this topic, that the Bedouins swear by their tent-poles. We should call that swearing by the Styx.
NOTES OF CASES.
BICYCLING ox SUNDAY. — In Eaton v. Atlas Ins. Co., 89 Me. 570, it appeared that the plaintiff rode on Sunday on a bicycle to attend the funeral of a friend, returning by a longer route for recreation, and was injured on his return. The court held that his going was not a violation of the law against traveling on Sunday, and therefore his accident insurance policy was not avoided "while or in consequence of violating any law," but his returning in the longer way brought the accident within a clause of the policy limiting recovery to a certain amount in case of injury, "while engaged for pleasure or recreation in amateur bicycling," etc. The court intimated that the result would have been otherwise if the rider had been injured while on his direct route to or from the funeral.
EXHUMATION. — An interesting and almost novel point was decided by the New York Court of Appeals in Weble v. U. S. M. Ace. Association, an action on an accident policy. The insured had met his death by drowning. The policy provided that " any medical adviser of the association shall be permitted to examine the person or body of the insured in respect to any alleged injury or cause of death, when and so often as he requires," and to attend any post mortem examination held on the part of his representatives or beneficiaries. Also that a strict compliance was a condition precedent to the enforcement of the contract. The deceased was drowned, September 4, 1893, and immediate notice thereof was given to the company. The body was buried, after a coroner's investigation, September 9th. On September 19th, written demand was made by the company's medical adviser for permission to examine the body to ascertain the cause of death, and was refused on account of the necessity of disinterment. The court held that the refusal was warranted. They observed : —
"The effect of the giving of immediate notice was to impose upon the defendant the obligation immediately to make such investigation of that occurrence, as to enable it to decide whether to insist upon its right of an examination of the body in order to satisfy itself as to the cause of the death. It was not at liberty to wait indefinitely, or for any unreasonable length of time. The provision, though not, as before observed, of an unreasonable nature, nevertheless was one which, in the nature of things, called for prompt action on the part of the insurer. Although no time is specified within which the permission to examine may be availed of, still, a due regard for the sentiments of the family and friends of the deceased, if not public policy, required as immediate an exercise of the option to examine as was possible. Conditions in insurance policies, as in all other contracts, should be construed strictly against those for whose benefit they were reserved (Paul v. Insurance Co., 112 N. Y., 472). It was an unreasonable delay on the
