MISSING BAKER

Hokitika Guardian, 17 September 1940, Page 3

MISSING BAKER

| APPEAL BY INSURANCE COY. (Per- Press Association--Copyright). WELLINGTON, Sep. 16, • The disappearance of William Alfred. Joseph Montgomery, a baker, while on his daily round delivering bread -at> N'gatea, pear Thames,- on February 3rd, 1938, and the question of the payment of his life insurance, is occupying the attention of vhe Appeal Couit, to-day. Montgomery's ,can was found near the wharf on the Pikao River, bin no trace of Montgomery has been found since. At the time of Ins disappearance, he was in good health and sound financial position, and there appeared to be no reason why lie should’have taken hik own lire. The view commonly accepted in the district was that he had accidentally fallen into the river, which was then somewhat flooded, and had been urowned. I The Public Trustee, as the ■ holder I of the will, dated 1925, applied m June j last to the Supreme Court, for an , order granting leave to swear the death of the missing person, so that probate could bo granted and the estate administered. This application was opposed by the A.M P. Society, the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance, and the State Fire Office, in which Montgomery’s life was insured for a i total ol £3,000. Mr Justice Johnston, by whom the application was heard, gave leave to swear death, at the same time pointing out that the insurance companies could defend the proceedings on the policy, on the ground that there wms no evidence of death. 'I lie Appeal Court, to-day, as hearing an appeal for this decision, Mr G. G. Watson, for the appellant insurance companies to-day, said that the case was of general importance to all insurance companies, as Mr Justice Johnston’s judgment carried the state of the law further against the insurance companies than it had been before, and that he made an order on facts which hitherto would not have been considered as sufficient. He .submitted .that Mr Justice Johnston had adopted a wrong view of the law, which, although correct in England, was wrong •in New Zealand. The effect of the Administration Act was that, once probate or letters of administration were obtained, the onu . •.•/as then thrown on the insurance companies to prove affirmatively that the missing.person was not dead, but alive. In England, the. law placed no such burden on the companies. Mr Justice Johnston, having accepted the law to he the same as in England, approached the facts in an attitude which he would not have adopted had he been aware o! the true effect of the Administration Act. Had the Judge approached the facts in the correct attitude, he would not have held that the evidence produced was sufficient to enable him to make the order asked for.