LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1195, 2 August 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

» WHAT WAS TOLD TO HIS DOCTOR. WAS IT CONFIDENTIAL? COURT OF APPEAL TO DECIDE. ADMONITION TO THE PRESS. Whether the proposed evidence of doctors was admissible in the Supreme Court as evidence, and whether the discharge card of a hospital patient was admissible as an entry made, in the course of the hospital doctor's duty: These were the ratner important questions on which tho Appeal Court,was asked to express an opinion yestorday in tho case 01 Teresa Veronica Lucena v. the National llutual Lite Association of Australasia, Ltd. Originally tlie case came beiore Mr. Justice Kdwards in tho nature of a claim •? u e Su P"' me Court, but before hearing it he ordered a special case to be stated and removed it into the Court of Appeal for argument. On the bench yesterday were the Chief Justice (& lr Bobert Stout), Sir Joshua Williams, and Justices Donniston and Edwards. Jlr.~W. H. D. Bell appeared ior tho plaintiff, and Mr. C. H. Treadwell ior the defendant company. It appeared' from particulars set out. that on February 5, 19u7, one Arthur Harold Lucena had issued to him by the defendant company a ljfe policy of insurance for the sum of .£IOOO, with participation m profits. Lucena died on February 5, 1910, and his widow, a;, executrix of the last will of deceased, claimed from the company the sum of 1£1032, alleged to be payable under the policy. The company refused to pay on the ground that deceased had obtained the policy by making false and fraudulent statements as to his condition of health at that time and before. The widow (thi plaintiff in the present case) sued to recover in the Supreme Court. As a defenco to the action, the company set out that tho policy was void on the ground that deceased had made false declarations as to his condition of health, and to prove this it-was desired to call the evidence of four medical men who had attended, the deceased before the issue of the life policy, and it was desired also to put in as' evidence a discharge card from the hospital, signed by a hospital surgeon, now deceased Before admitting these the learned .Judge decided that a srwcial e?.=-e should bo stated for the Court of Appeal. It was agreed that the costs of this.snecial. r.ns" should be reservod to the trial of the action.

When the hcn.rin:: was about to commence wctor.'l.iv his Honour the Chief .Tiictiro fsjiirl tint there was in the prints oonsidpr.">blo evidonco which eho'ilrt not be published, as it ; mie;ht interfere with tho "roper course of justice, if, bter on, the case had to' come before a jury. Vr. .Tustip.e T)"nni?ton: That is a suff- ' to tho pi" 1 ". ■Vv. Justice Towards; Oh. no. it is sompt,Mn<r m"r» than a The Chief TusHpp: Th» pre" will «>« fW if -n-oiilt] ,bp improper to print the evidence.. " T.otol nrrTifflnf flppniTod tho (rrootov n-rt of 'f-p' <-by, and their Honour? reserved decision.