The reason which induced the office to refuse payment may possibly be found in the fact that only two years’ premium was received, and that, as a young office, they were galled at having made an unfortunate bargain. But there does not seem justice in the interpretation of a law which decides that a father has no interest in the life of his son, although there are many reasons to justify it as expedient. Yet so it was ruled; and this decision affected property to the amount of half a million. Mr. Justice Bayley, in giving judgment, said: “If a father, wishing to give his son some property to dispose of, made an insurance on his son’s life, not for the father’s own benefit, but for the benefit of his son, there was no law to prevent his doing so; but that was a transaction quite different from the present; and if the notion prevailed that such an insurance as the one in question was valid, the sooner it was corrected the better.” FOOTNOTES: [16] The present Marquis of Lansdowne. [17] Birmingham. Commercial. Egis. Hercules. Kent. London Commercial. Marine. Minerva. National. Philanthropic. Protector. Rainbow. Royal Institution. St. James’s. St. Patrick. Shamrock. South Devon. Southwark and Surrey. Star. Sussex. CHAP. XII. GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES--OPINIONS CONCERNING THEM--GREAT LOSS TO THE STATE.--MR. MOSES WING’S LETTER.--MR. FINLAISON.--NEW ANNUITY ACT--ITS ADVANTAGES TO JOBBERS.--ENDEAVOURS TO PROCURE OLD LIVES.--ANECDOTES CONCERNING THEM.--PHILIP COURTENAY.