French Court must have some strong circumstances to imbibe that idea; he therefore hoped that the jury would reprobate such wagers. [Sidenote: LORD MANSFIELD’S CHARGE TO THE JURY.] In charging the jury, Lord Mansfield expressed his abhorrence of the whole transaction, and of its being brought into a Court of Justice when it might have been settled elsewhere, and wished that their verdict could so operate that neither party might be the winner; but, as the law did not expressly prohibit, and the wager was laid, the question before them was, who had won? His lordship observed that the indecency of the proceeding arose more from the unnecessary questions asked than from the case itself. There was every external proof that the defendant was right in his conjecture. D’Eon was dressed as a man, would have fought duels, was captain of dragoons, and had resided here as an ambassador; therefore, to all appearances the defendant had the best of the wager. On the part of the plaintiff there was a considerable difficulty. Suppose him to have been right, yet the proof of the fact was not easy. It was not in the power of any person to compel D’Eon to disclose her sex, and was it known, the proof still rested on the plaintiff. It had been thrown out that he was sure of the fact at the time he laid the wager. The contrary has appeared, for he had no proofs in his power at the time the contract was entered into.... The Court of France considered D’Eon as a man; there were reasons afterwards to believe the contrary.... It might have been difficult to prove the sex, if private quarrels of the parties had not furnished collateral evidence as put the question out of doubt. The witnesses were either perjured, or their testimonies must be credited. As was the case in all wagers, both parties conceived themselves certain of winning. His lordship called upon the jury to consider all the circumstances, and if they thought that the bet was fairly won to decide in favour of the plaintiff, for whom a verdict was given, without any hesitation on the part of the jury—for 700_l._ and forty shillings—a verdict awaited with intense interest, as numerous sums on policies were depending on this suit. When, however, this policy business came to be solemnly signed before Lord Mansfield, in the Court of King’s Bench, the defendant pleaded a late Act of Parliament for the non-payment of the policy he had underwritten, a statute which provided that ‘no insurance shall be valid, where the person insuring cannot prove an antecedent interest in the person or thing insured.’ The Chief Justice having admitted the statute to be binding in the present instance, the decision at once and for ever deprived all insurers in the ‘D’Eon policies’ of the golden harvest they so long and patiently expected.[328] [Sidenote: LA CHEVALIÈRE D’EON!]