THE SMALLFIELD CASE

Evening Star, Issue 17957, 2 May 1922, Page 6

THE SMALLFIELD CASE

.IUDGMENT RESERVED. (Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 2. Tho Appeal Court continued the hearing of tho case of the Rational Mutual Life Association of Australia v. Srnalltield. The appeal is from the judgment of Mr Justice Stringer. The respondent is the widow ot the Into C, R. Sma.llfield. of Hamilton, who was insured for £IO,OOO. This was contested on tho ground of suicide, but the. jurv at the first hearing decided in respondent’s favor. Tho appellants then asked leave to amen HI the defence on the ground tha deacesed hud failed to furnish true answers. 1.-cavo was refused, and tho association then appealed. Mr Ostler, for respondent, in the course of* his argument, said that tho appellants mn?fc rely on 'tbo evidence of Mrs omnllfield as to her husband’s state of health after ho had the inliucnza. The judge at tho trial, had, however, rejected that evidence in so far as it could be interpreted as me,ailing that Mrs Emnllficld had said that her husband Avas never so well after ho had the influenza. All the evidence was consistent with Rmallficld’s complaints having been incurred after ho had signed his proposal for insurance. Ihe earliest direct evidence of any complaint as to his heart was at a period four mouths after tho date of the proposal for insurance. Learned counsel submitted also that the insurance company had not discharged the onus which lay oiUt-of proving misrepresentation, or nondisclosure by Smallficld. Tho witness to the proposal for insurance and declarations therewith had not been called. It was essential for the company’s case that this witness .should have been called at the trial. There had been no suggestion that there should be a, new trial, or that any further evidence should he called. The' whole matter when the jury was discharged had been left to Mr Justic Stringer. The court reserved its judgment.