S58 FEDEBAIi BEFOBTEB. �drnntard at the time the policy issued, and had subsequently had mania a potu, which, it was proved, is synonymous with delirium tremens. Being introduced as a witnesa on this trial, she swore that the facts stated in the petition for divorce were not true, and that her husband had never acquired habits of intemperance until after the policy was issued; and much proof was introduced on both aides tending, in behalf of the plaintiff, to corroborate her present statement, and, in behalf of the defendant, that made in the petition for divorce. In attempted explanation she introduced proof of her being a foreigner, born and educated in France, and having an im- perfect knowledge of our language ; that she was in great dis- tress mentally; was rendered, both herself and children, wretched by the habits and conduct of her husband, as well as being reduced to want and suffering. She swore that it was a mistake she made in telling her lawyer that her hus- band had been so long a drunkard; that the lawyer wrote the petition, and she swore to it without knowing the force and effect of the words used, or detecting the mistake. �The lawyer swore that the husband was his own relative; that. he and other friends advised the application for divorce, and was told by her that the facts were as stated in the peti- tion, except that, having seen the ravings of the husband, he himself named it mania a potu, and thought it was such. He further said that the language of the petition was his own, but that he read it over to her and she swore to it. He also testi- fied that of his own knowledge the husband was a temperate man in 1869, when the policy issued, and it did not occur to him, at the time he wrote the petition for divorce, that the fact of his being a drunkard as far back as the petition stated was not true. There was much other teatimony pro and con upon this and ail the issues made by the pleadings, but it is suf- ficiently stated above to indicate the points made upon this motion for a new trial. �Among other things the court cùarged the jury as follows: "If you bolieve the facts stated in the petition for divorce to be true, it is an end of this case and the plaintiff cannot recover. It provea, if trae, conclusively, that the life assured ����
