THE SMALLFIELD CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18544, 3 May 1922, Page 2

THE SMALLFIELD CASE

COURT’S JUDGMENT RESERVED. (Pee United Pbess Association.) WELLINGTON, May 2. The Appeal Court continued the hearing of. the case of the National Mutual Life Association of Australia v. Smallfield. The appeal-is from the judgment of Mr. Justice Stringer. The respondent is the widow of the late C. R. Smallfield, of Hamilton, who was irisured for £10,005. .This was contested on the ground of suicide, but the jury at the first hearing decided in respondent’s favour. The appellants then asked leave to amend the defence on the ground that deceaced had failed to furnish true answers, leave was refused, and the association then appealed.' Mr H. H. Ostler, for respondent, in the course of his, argument, said that the appellants must' rely on the evidence of Mrs Smallfield as to her husband’s state of health after he had the 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 as well after ho had the influenza. All the evidence was consistent with' Smallfield’s complaints having been incurred after he had signed his proposal for insurance. The earliest evidence Of any complaint as to his heart was at a period four months after the date of the proposal for insurance. Learned counsel submitted also that the insurance company had not discharged the onus which lay on it of proving misrepresentation or nondisclosure by Smallfield. The witness to the proposal for insurance and declarations therewith had not been called. It was, essential for the company’s case that this witness should have been called at the trial. 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. The court reserved judgment.