SATURDAY.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 6093, 9 March 1891, Page 2

SATURDAY.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Edwards and a special jury ) J. P. SMITH V. GOVERNMENT INBUEANCE DEPABTMENT).

After we went to press on Saturday further evidence was given by Somerset William D'Arcy Irvine, as to the procedure followed by the Department; and Montague Lascelles, who deposed he had never seen Mrs Smith the worse for liquor. His Honor summed up, and 'he jury retired to consider the following ibsues : — 1. Had Edith Smith prior to the time of her proposal for insurauce always been of sober, temperate, early, and regular habits? 2. Was the said Edith Smith at the time of her proposal of sober, temperate early and regular habits ? 3. Was the statement of the said Edith Smith in the answers to the medioal officer that she had always been of sober, temperate early, and regular habits, knowingly untrue ?

4. Was the statement of the said Edith. Smith in the said auswers to the said medical officer, that she was then of sober, temperate, early, and regular habits, knowingly untrue ?

5. Was the answer of the said Edith Smith to question No. 7 in her proposal for insurance untrue ? 6. Was the said answer knowingly untrue ?

7. Was the answer of the said Edith Smith to question No. 8 in her said proposal untrue ? 8. Was the said answer knowingly untrue ? J

9. Was the said answer of the said Edith. Smith to question No. 5 in the statement of the medioal officer untrue ? 10. Was the said answer knowiwjly untrue ? J After being absent an hour the foreman intimated that the jury were unanimously agreed to tho last six issues, but there was no chance of an agreement on the first four. His Honor said after three hours' retirement a three-fourths verdict could be taken. After the three hours' interval the jury intimated that they had not agreed on a three-fourths verdict. The jury again retired, and His Honor urged counsel to accept the verdict on the last six issues, which could deoide the action. To this Mr Oresswell did not agree, and urged the jury should be locked up or discharged. .Eventually His Honor accepted a suggestion of Mr Cornford that the jury should find a verdict on the last fix issues and plaintiff could move for a new trial, if of opinion His Honor's direction was wrong. The juiy were senl for, and His Hoaor directed then that if they found the answer of Edith Smith to his seventh I question was untrue thty should find for the defendants. The Foreman : Suppose, Your Honor, that the jury find that some answers were given untruly, but not wilfully so? She might have beeu unaware that her illness, was serious. His Honor said that if only one of the questions had been answered untruly they must give a verdict for defendants. The jury again retired, the foreman retured and stated five out the twelve now refused to give any verdict or answer any issue.

The jury were sent for, and His Honor said it was their duty to find a verdict according to the evidence and direction of the Judge. As he uuderstood the evidence the verdict must be for defendants. He took the entire responsibility, and acting in the interest of both parties, it was better that the matter should be settled. He instructed them to give a verdict for defendants. The jury after an absence oi five minutes returned and the foreman said in accordance with His Honor's instructions, the jury returned h verdict for defendants.. His Honor certified for a special jury, second day's trial, second counsel, and costs on the middle scale. Mr Cress well whs granted fourteen days' extension of time in which to give notice of motion for a now trial.