THE COURTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 8521, 30 October 1888, Page 2

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. —CIYIL SITTINGS. Monday, October 29.

(Before his Honour Mr Justice Richmond.) PEDERSEN (V. COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY AND HBSCOTT. This was an action brought by Ole Pedersen, tinsmith, of Marton, against the Colonial Mutual Lite Insurance Society and George Hescott, insurance canvasser, for the recovery of Ll5O damages, in consequence of the alleged fraudulent representation of Hescott, who, the plaintiff alleged, had induced him to surrender a policy issued by the Government Life Insurance Department for Ll5O, payable at death, or at the expiration of 25 years, on the representation that the defendant Company would issue to him a policy at a cheaper rate, and upon more favourable terms, namely, a policy for L2OO, payable at death, or at the expiration of 20 years. This transpired on the sth December, 1887, and in February, 1888, the defendant Company issued to the plaintiff a policy for L2OO, payable one month after death. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant Company refused to issue a policy on the terms stated by Hescott, and and he therefore prayed that the policy issued by the defendant Company should be cancelled, and that he be awarded Ll5O damages. All the allegations as to the false and fraudulent representations were denied by the defendants in their pleadings. The defendant Hescott, in an amended statement of defence (subsequently withdrawn), alleged that the action was commenced in pursuance of an alleged agreement between the plaintiff and the Government Life Insurance Department, the effect of which was that the latter would maintain the plaintiff in bringing the action. In a further statement filed a few days ago, the defendants stated that they were willing to admit that the plaintiff may have signed the proposal under a misapprehension as to to its purport and effect, and they would therefore agree to the decree sought by the plaintiff for the cancellation of the policy, and also that the surrender of the Government policy should not bo registered, but should be delivered up to the plaintiff and cancelled, only that it was not in their possession or under their control.

The case was adjourned for half an hour at the request of counsel, and on resuming Mr Gully (who appeared for the defendants) stated that the defendant Company had satisfied itself that the plaintiff was, at a 1 events, under a misapprehension as to the effect of the policy, and under the circumstances they had decided not to oppose the prayer of the claim. The defendants would agree to cancel the policy, and would repay to the plaintiff the amount of the premium (L 53s 6d) paid by him. The plaintiff had accepted this, and the defendants had agreed to pay costs according to scale. Mr P. A. Buckley (for the plaintiff) asked that fees should bo allowed for a second counsel, seeing that the case was such an important one, to which request his Honour acceded.

Mr Gully wished it to be understood that the defendants had consented to the judgment on the ground set forth in their amended statement.

The Court then adjourned.