SELF DESTRUCTION OF INSURED   473

insurance under this policy shall be a sum equal to the premiums thereon, which have been paid to and received by the company."

The court submitted the following issue to the jury, which was answered by them in the negative: "Did the insured, Roger L. Parker, die by his own hand or act with intent to commit suicide?"

The court below charged the jury, in part, as follows: "It is alleged that R. L. Parker, the insured, died on the 29th of January, 1923; that prior to his death he had paid the premium on this policy of insurance, and that after his death in January, 1923, the plaintiff furnished the defendant with proof of his death." * * *

It is admitted that he died from the result of a pistol shot, and the sole question for you is whether this evidence satisfies you by its greater weight that he shot himself intentionally. * * *

The defendant tendered the issue "Did the insured cause or pro-duce his own self-destruction?" The court below refused to submit the issue, and submitted the one set forth in the charge above. * * *

All the evidence introduced, both by plaintiff and defendant, shows that the case was fought out on the theory whether Roger L. Parker destroyed himself by committing suicide or lie accidentally killed himself. There was no evidence as to insanity. We think the issue was a proper one, under the language of the policy, and the facts in the case.

The defendant contends: "The Court can readily see that the term `suicide' is wholly inconsistent with the provisions of this policy, because in this policy it is provided that whether the insured `be sane or insane,' and an insane person could not commit self-murder, mental derangement would be a complete defense against self-murder or suicide, while under the terms of this policy and the decisions of the Court, the purpose of the defendant was to protect itself from any liability which might produce the insured's own self-destruction, whether he be sane or insane." * * *

We do not think that the language in the policy is clear enough to be construed as meaning that self-destruction included accidental killing, but the reasonable and righteous interpretation of the clause in the policy is that self-destruction meant suicide, whether the insured be sane or insane. Under the language of the policy, accidental killing would not be so construed as to mean self-destruction, such as would avoid the policy. If the defendant so intended, how easily it could have been written in the policy, "Self-destruction: In the event of self-destruction (which includes acci-

difference between slipping and falling down an elevator shaft and jumping down)? If you say in suicide there is an intention to produce death whereas in an accident there is not, then would you say that one who jumps down an elevator shaft, while so insane as to be incapable of entertaining an intention has killed himself accidentally or by suicide?

If an insane person not realizing what a pistol is, playfully puts it to his temple and pulls the trigger, dying as a consequence, has he committed suicide? Is that any different from a sane man who mistakenly believing the pistol to be unloaded, playfully puts it to his temple and deliberately pulls the trigger?