SMALLFIELD CASE.

Grey River Argus, 3 May 1922, Page 2

SMALLFIELD CASE.

APPEAL COURT RESERVES JUDGMENT. WELLINGTON, May 2. In the Court of Appeal, Mr Ostler continued his argument on behalf ot respondent in the Smallfield case. Appellant, he said, must rely on the evidence of Mrs Smallfield as to her husband’s state of health after he had influenza. The Judge at the trial, had, however, rejected that evidence, insofar as it could be interpreted as meaning that Mrs Smallfleld had said her husband was never so well after he had influenza. All the evidence was consistent with Smallfield’s complaints having been incurred after he had signed his proposal for insurance. The earliest direct evidence of any complaint as to his heart was at a period four months after the date of the proposal for insurance. Counsel submitted also that the Insurance Company had not discharged the onus which lay on it of proving misrepresentation or non-disclosure by Smallfield. The witness to the proposal for insurance and the declarations therewith, had not been called. It was essential for the Company’s case that this witness should have been called at the trial, at which there had been no suggestion there should be a new trial, or that any further evidence should be called. The whole matter when the jury was discharged had been left to Mr Justice Stringer. Decision was reserved.