APPEAL COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 2 May 1922, Page 7

APPEAL COURT.

THE SMALLFIELD CASE

BY CABLE—PEESS ASSOCIATION—COPYEIGHT WELLINGTON, May 2. In the Court ol Appeal, Mr. Ostler continued h:& argument on behalf of respondent in the Smallfield case. Appellant 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 in so far as it could be interpreted as meaning that Mrs. Smallfield had said that 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 Qf any complaint as to his heart was at a period four months after the date of the proposal for insurance. He 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 declarations therewith had not been called. It was essential for the com-

I pany's case that this witness should | have been called. At the tr.al there ! had been no suggestion that 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. I The Court reserved its decision.