MISSING BAKER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24421, 5 October 1940, Page 13

MISSING BAKER

DEEMED TO BE DEAD INSURANCE COMPANIES' APPEAL DISMISSED (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, Oct. 4. The Court of Appeal tc-day delivered judgment dismissing the appeal of the A.M.P. Society, the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society and the State Fire Office from an order made by Mr Justice Johnston at Wellington on June 19, 1940, granting leave to the Public Trustee to swear death of William Joseph Suiter Montgomery, a baker, who disappeared at Ngatea on February 3, 1936. The majority of the Court—the Chiei Justice, Mr Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Northcroft —expressed the view that the only proper inference to be drawn from the circumstances was thai Montgomery had met his death in the vicinity of the wharf at Ngatea, but as to how precisely he came by his death the court was not called upon to decide. Mr Justice Blair dissented, expressing the opinion that there was no preponderance of evidence which justified the conclusion that Montgomery's disappearance was due to drowning oi death rather than to a deliberate disappearance. In his view, the proper attitude for the court to adopt was that sufficient evidence had not been produced to justify the court in making the order asked for. Montgomery's van was found near the wharf on Piako river, but there was no trace of Montgomery. At the time of his disapperance he was m good health and sound financial position, and there was no reason whv he should have taken his own life. The view commonly accepted in the district was that he had accidentally fallen into the river, which was then somewhat flooded, and had been drowned. The Public Trustee, as holder of the will, dated 1925 applied to the Supreme Court for an order granting leave to swear the death of the missing person, so that probate could be granted and the estate administered. This application was opposed by the insurance companies in which Montgomery's life was insured for a total of £3OOO. Mr Justice Johnston gave leave to swear death, at the same time pointing out that the insurance companies could defend proceedings on the policy on the ground that there was no evidence of death.