Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE SMALLFIELD CASE

INSURANCE COMPANY’S APPEAL, ... fPM Umxtxd P**4< Auoqutrw.) I 'WELLINGTON, M*y 1. The Court of Appeal is ; hearing argument in the case of the * National Mutual Life Association of Australasia (Ltd.) v. Smallfield, an appeal from the judgment of Mr Justice Stringer greeting joßtfinent to be entered for ihe respondent. Ipe respondent is the widow of the late C. K. Smallfield, of Hamilton, He was insured with the appellant for £16,000, and the respondent claimed that this sum was duo uhchr the policy. The defence filed by the appellant allegitd that deceased had died bv his own hand. Hie jury at the trial, after the close of the appellant's evidence and before the close of the respondent’s evidence, intimated that it was satisfied that the appellant had failed to prove that deceased died by his own hand. Hie appellant then asked leave to amend the 'defence on the ground that the evidence tendered on befialf oi: the respondent Jiowcd that -deceased -had failed to furnisE true answers to the questions submitted to him upon his proposal for insurance, and that he had not disclosed matters affecting the risk which he-ought to have-disclosed. Mr Justice .Stringer refused leave to amend, end directed judgment to be entered for the respondent From this judgment' the Insurance Company now appeals. Mr A. Gray, - K.G.-, with him Mr N. S. Johnson, appeared for the appellant company, and Mr 'H. -H. Ostler-, and with him Mr Detain are, for the respondent. - Mr Ostler raised the preliminary point as to whether the appeal to- the Court of Appeal was mot impossible by reason of the clause in the policy which bound it to submit to the jurisdiction of the-Supreme Court. The point was noted. Mr Gray - then dealt -with the evidence given on behalf of the respondent, which, he said, supported the appeal.. The appellant company naked ■- that Mr Justice Stringer’s judgment, should be-revorsed, 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 the respondent showed - that Smallfield had been rejected from military sendee. It was his duty to disclose, (his 4n Ips proposal for insurance, but he had not done to. The evidence also shoved that Smallfield, mujit, have known that his health was not good, and yet he had in his proposal stated that it was. He had warranted the truth 61' all the answers in his proposal for insurance. There had been not only a mis-statement, but there had also been a non-disclosure of material''facts of rejection for military service. He contended, , therefore, that the policy was voided. ; . Mr Johnston also addressed the court m support of the appellant’s contentions. No reasonable man could, he said, have truthfully answered the'questions as Smallfield Hud answered them in Jjis proposal for insurance. • • ■ ~ . Mr. Ostler, for the respondent (Mrs Lucy SraallfieW). ‘dealt at length with the history of the'case, ' He pointed out that the inaunance companv had known more -than six months before' the t riaf that Smallfield had been rejected for militai-y service, mid yet had no raised the ppint until the trial was nearly over. .. -... cv ' Argument is proceeding, .

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT19220502.2.33

Bibliographic details

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18543, 2 May 1922, Page 4

Word Count
535

THE SMALLFIELD CASE Otago Daily Times, Issue 18543, 2 May 1922, Page 4

THE SMALLFIELD CASE Otago Daily Times, Issue 18543, 2 May 1922, Page 4