1. Appeal — Harmless Error.

An alleged error in admitting in evidence a policy of insurance, without requiring plaintiff to offer therewith the application on which the policy was based, and which formed part of the contract, held no ground for reversal, where the application was afterwards admitted, and went before the jury, on defendant’s own offer.

2. Lire Insurance — Application—Evidence.

Affidavits of insured’s neighbors in support of his application for a pension, containing statements as to his health, are properly excluded in an action on a policy subsequently applied for and obtained, when it does not appear that insured himself procured the affidavits, or knew their contents.

3. Same — Report oe Pension-Examining Physicians.

The report of physicians who examined a person on his application for a pension is not admissible, as tending to show the falsity of statements afterwards made by him in an application for life insurance, where it does not appear that he knew of the report or its contents.

4. Same — Declarations and Admissions.

Statements made to a third party, by one applying for a pension, as to his physical condition at that time, are inadmissible in a suit upon a policy of life insurance afterwards applied for and obtained by the pensioner.

6. Same — Statements to Attokney — Privileged Communications.

Statements made by an applicant for a pension, to one acting as his attorney in the matter, are privileged communications, and cannot be proved in an action upon a policy of life insurance subsequently applied for and obtained by the pensioner.

6. Same — Parol Evidence.

An applicant for life insurance stated, in answer to a question, that he was on the United States invalid pension roll, under the pension laws of 1890, “for general disability,” and “not for any acute or chronic disease.” In a suit on the policy, plaintiff was allowed to show that the answers in the application were written by the examining physician of the insurance company; that, in answer to the question whether the applicant was on the invalid pension roll, the latter answered that he was there for general disability; that the physician then asked if he had any acute or chronic disease, to which he answered, “No;” and that the physician himself then added the statement, “Not for any acute or chronic disease.” Eeld, that this evidence did not alter or diminish the terms of the written warranty, so as to render the admission of the evidence erroneous under the rule relating to parol evidence.

7. Same — Qualified Representations.

An applicant for life insurance, on his medical examination, stated, in answer to a question, that he was on the United States invalid pension roll, under the act of 1890, “for general disability,” and “not for any acute or chronic disease.” It appeared, however, from a footnote of the medical examiner, that the insured proceeded to say that his pension was obtained at the solicitation of a pension lawyer about three years before, and that he could give no further particulars. Eeld, that this was a declaration that he answered so far as his memory served; that it was then the duty of the company, if it desired to know the particulars, to examine the pension roll; and that, although the pension records showed certain specified diseases, there was no breach of the warranty.

8. Sam e — Trial—Instructions.

Certain instructions to a jury, containing comments in respect to conditions in fine print upon insurance policies, with a reference to the effect of conditions printed in like manner upon a railroad passenger ticket, held justly open to criticism, though not sufficient ground for reversal.