THE LATE REV. E. L. WOODHOUSE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3197, 23 June 1915, Page 54

THE LATE REV. E. L. WOODHOUSE.

CLAIM OF £SOO FOR INSURANCE. His Honor Mr Justice Sim sat at the Supremo Court on Monday morning to hear a. claim made by the Public Trustee, as executor of the will of the late Rev. E. L. Woodhousc, who, if will be. remembered, was drowned in the Molyneux River about 12 months ago, against the National Insurance Company for £SOO under an accident insurance policy. The statement of claim set out: That by a personal accident policy issued by the company to Edward Livesey Woodhouse, of Dunedin, clerk in holy orders, the company agreed that if ho sustained any personal injury directly or solely by accidental externa), violent, and visible means within the meaning of the said policy, and the direct effect of such injury should be ihe immediate and sole cause of death within three calendar months, the company should pay £590 to his legal representatives. That the said E. L. Woodhouse on or about June 19, 1914, sustained a personal injury within the meaning of the said policy, to wit, drowning. That the said E. L. Woodhouse on June 16, 1914, duly executed iris last will, probate of which was granted to the Public Trustee. That the company refused to pay the £SOO or any part thereof.

In the statement of defence the company craved leave to refer to the precise terms and effect of the policy. The company denied that there was a personal injury within the meaning of the policy, ,by drowning or otherwise, the direct effect of which was the immediate and absolutely sole cause of death. The policy contained a proviso that accidental death should not be presumed by reason of the disappearance of the insured until the fact of death or disablement by accident was established, nor to any cause of death pr disablement the nature and cause of which were unknown or incapable of direct or positive proof. Further, that the said E. L. Woodhouse met bis death whilst acting in violation of the laws or by-laws of the railways within the meaning of a condition of the policy by trespassing on the railway traffic bridge at Balclutha on June 19, 1914; and that the injury (if any) sustained was an injury of which there was no external or visible sign within the meaning of the said condition. By an amended statement of defence the company said that no proof of the death and the cause thereof satisfactory to the company had ever been furnished in terms of the insurance policy. Mr Solomon, K.C., and Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Willaim C. MacGregor and Mr W. Downie Stewart for defendants. Mr Solomon opened the case at some length, and called evidence.

Mr MacGregor said he had a statement to make in regard to the case which might possibly allow the jury to be discharged. The position was that until defendants had come into court that day they were unaware of the evidence that would be given by Mr Anderson and Mr Hogg. It had been inconceivable to understand how this young man had met his death except by falling off the bridge. They would see how careful the company' had been in the conditions attached to the issuing of the policy (those were road by counsel]. If the company had had the information provided in the evidence of Mr Anderson and Mr Hogg intimated to it during the past nine months the directors would have paid this claim. After hearing the evidence, defendant did not propose to raise any legal question. If the company had been enlightened as to the evidence there would have been no action. His Honor •. I understand that Mr MacGregor is giving reasons for consenting to judgment. Mr MacGregor replied in the affirmative, and pointed out that the premium on the policy for the current year had never been paid, so that if it had chosen to do so the company might have raised a technical defence.

His Honor directed that judgment should ho given for plaintiff for £-500, and discharged tho fury. The question of rests 'was then argued, and his. Honor said, in effect, that ho thought that, the Public Trustee and his officers should have rondo known to the insurance company all tho fresh information they had gathered with regard to the particulars of deceased's death. If they had done so it would have given the company an opportunity to pay tho amount of tho policy, as it now agreed to do. Ho thought that under the circumstances tho Public Trustee should he penalised to the extent of not allowing him any witnesses’ expenses in the case.

Judgment was therefore given for plaintiff for £SOO. with costs according to scale; disbursements to he fixed hy the registrar; second counsel and witnesses’ expenses disallowed.