24 FEDERAL REPORTER. I
character of William Wackerle drawn several thousand dollars from
the United States treasury in pensions. But this witness proved
upon examination to be ignorant of a number of important events in
the life of the real William Wackerle, such, as his wife‘s having given
birth to child on the night she and her husband arrived from Sacra-
mento, California, at Quincy, Illinois, and the fact that William
Wackerle was in Cincinnati in the year 1869 and at another time in
Marshall, Texas. The witness was also ignorant as to the age, sex,
place of birth or burialof five out of eight children he said the plain-
tiff had borne to him.
The evidence was also conflicting as to other points, which need not
be here detailed. i
Tamar, D. J., (charging jury.) You have been detained here for a
considerable length of time on a case somewhat peculiar in its char-
acter, thesolution of which must depend almost entirely on you; in
other words, the main question at issue is a simple question of fact,
of which `jurors are by law the sole judges. This is a suit on a policy
issued January 24, 1867, in which the party whose life was insured
is described as a resident of Milwaukee, and a laborer. The policy
was issued on the life of the husband for the benefit of the wife. She
contends that her husband was killed December 25, 1872, in Louis-
iana, near Shreveport, and on that hypothesis she oifered to the com-
pany proof of loss—tl1at is, the required proof under the policy-that
. he was dead on February 4, 1873. On January 24, 1873, she paid
the premium,-—$131.44,—also on the hypothesis that he was not then
dead, or, if dead, the fact of his death was unknown to her; so that,
, if the result of your verdict is that the plaintiff in this case is entitled
'to recover, she will recover the $4,000 insurance, with interest from
March 6, 1873. The loss was payable six months after proof was
made, and that, by my computation, would bring it to March 6, 1873;
and as to the payment of $131.44, of course no interest should run
against that until the company was informed or notified that death
had previously occurred.
For the purposes of this case, if you find for the plaintiil, you will
compute interest on the $4,000 and on the $131.44 from March 6,
1873. M Now, the question of fact is a very diihcult one, in which you
can receive little or no aid from the court; but it may not be improper
for the court to direct your attention in a very general way to such
matters asimay aid you in the analysis of the testimony. Bear in
mind that the loss is alleged to have occurred on the twenty-fifth of
December, 1872. Bear in mind, also, the circumstances and facts