SMALLFIELD CASE

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 2 May 1922, Page 5

SMALLFIELD CASE

BEFORE APPEAL COURT.

lß\ TKLKURAI'H —PHEEf* ASSOCIATION..

WELLINGTON, May 1. In continuation of his argument before the Court of Appeal in the case of tne National Mutual Life Association of Australasia. Ltd. v. Smalliield, Mr Gray stated that appellant asked that Mr Justice Stringer's judgment should Ibe reversed, but the company could not complain if a new trial was ordered. The evidence before Mr Justice Stringer established, he contended, the proposed amended defence. The evidence for respondent showed that Smallfield had been rejected from military service. It was his duty to disclose this in his proposal for insurance, but he had not- done so. The evidence also showed that Smallfield must have known that his health was not good and he had in his proposal stated that J*' waf• He had warranted the truth of all the answers in his proposal for insurance. There had not only been misstatement, but there had also been non disclosure of the material facts of his rejection for military service. He contended therefore that the policy was void.

Mr Johnston also addressed the Court m support of apoellant's contentions. No reasonable man, he said could have truthfully answered the questions as Smallfield answered them iin his proposal for insurance. Mr (Ostler, for the respondent (Lucy Smallfield), dealt at length with the history of the case. He pointed out that the insurance company had known more than six months before the trial that Smallfield had been rejected for military service and yet had not raised i the point until the trial was nearly over, I Argument is proceeding. j