LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2693, 12 February 1916, Page 14

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT CIVIL BUSINESS THE ORDER OF CASES FIXED At a Chamber sitting of the Supreme }ourt yesterday morning, the civil list or tlie forthcoming sessions was called iver, and His Honour, Mr. Justice Chapman, made fixtures as follow:— Monday, February 1-I.—Charles Clifon Osmond and others v. Dalgety and 30., Ltd., claim for £32 10s., moneys laid on withdrawal commission. Tuesday, February 15.—William Jo.urko v. Lionel Ramsbottom Islierrood and another, claim for £100, al--o"cd to bo due for moneys paid on leposit. Wednesday, February 16. —Donald Eraser v. Ellen Nightingale, claim for 5520, alleged to be .due for injuries eceived; before a common jury of Thursday, February 17.—Tootal, Sroadluirst, Lee Company, Ltd., v. L. 3vans and Company, Ltd., claim for inunctioii. Also undefended divorce ases as follow Florence Elizabeth Jarnett v. Samuel Barnett; Sarah larigold y. Fred. Marigold; Arvid Carlson v. Ellen Carlson and Frederick clartin; Betsy Lawrence v. Morgan ?oobill Lawrence; Lilian Wall v. Varies James William Wall; Margaret r ano Waller v. Alexander Laurence Vtiller; Bridget Wcrburn Young v. jharles Young; Annie Maria 'Ramsay '. Allen Steel l'amsay; and Ethel Mary >niil v. James Henry Traill. Friday, February 18.—Harold Cecil Yilliams r. Lydia Caroline Williams and )aniel"Mahoney, petition for divorce; iefore a jury of twelve. Monday, February 21.—Frederick )obson v. John Keir, claim for £1000, lleged to be due on account of moneys eceived; before a jury of twelve. , Tuesday, February 22.—Emily Cochane v. George Cochrane, petition for tivoroe; before a common jury of welve. J. I. Hynes v. ■ the Patent ilip Company, claim for £250 damages or alleged negligence. Thursday, February 24.—'Wellington 'üblishing Company, Ltd., v. the Commonwealth and Dominion Line, Ltd., laim for £150, for alleged damage to iargo; before a jury of four. Friday, February 25. —Francis Joseph Richard Heath v. Charles Prendergast Sniglit, claim for £1178 damages aleged to be due for injuries received; lefore a jury of twelve. Tuesday, February 29. —The Commisiioner of Stamps v. _ Alexander Milne 3egg and another, claim for £6811 155., illeged to be due for estate duty. Wednesday, March 1. —Henry Thomp;on Johnson v. Charles W. Martin, ilaim for £180, for alleged breach oi sontract. Thursday, March 2— Samuel Lan md another v. Arthur Staples and anither, action for rescission of, agreenent, Friday, March 3.— T. B. Dwan ant mother v. John William Macduff, clain 'or £113 10s., alleged to be due for com nission. Other cases on the list without a fix ture for hearing are:—National Casl Register, Ltd., v. tho C. M. Ros Company, claim for £1206 for allegei breach of contract; Catherine Lew Broad v. H.M. tlio King, _ claim fo £247, alleged to be due as interest o: judgment; Clarencc Cyril Edgar Stcv ens v. Margaret Sarah Stevens anu Lewis Glover, petition for divorce; before a jury of twelve. INSURANCE LAW. FORM OF A POLICY IN QUESTION. An important question of law was raised in an originating summons heard before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in tho Supreme Court yesterday morning. The plaintiff in the action was tho Australian Mutual Provident Society, an association carrying on life insurance business in New Zealand, while the defendant was His Majesty's Attorney-General. Mr. C. P. Skerrctt, K.C., with him ill'. R. Kennedy, appeared ior the society, while the Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.C.) appeared for the Attor-ney-General. It appeared that the A.M.P. Society was desirous of issuing a new form of insurance policy, covering the lives of children, and, before doing so, it was anxious to settle the question as to whether tho policy would be in order, having regard to the provisions of Sections 67 and 68 of the Life Insurance Act. Tho following question was therefore submitted for answer: Whether a policy of life insurance on the lives of children, ill a form containing certain alternative provisions, is a valid policy? The alternative provisions mentioned were: (a) Payment of the amount of tho policy to the assured child if it survives tho maturity date of the policy; (b) payment of tho amount of the policy to the legal representatives of the assured child if such child dies after attaining the age of 21 years, but before the maturity date of the policy; (c) repayment of the premium Tpaid in respect "of sucli insurance, together with simple interest thoreon to tho proponent of such insurance if* the assured child dies before attaining the age of 21 years. • • • After hearing legal argument, - His Honour reserved decision.