A LIFE INSURANCE CLAIM

Otago Witness, Issue 3524, 27 September 1921, Page 24

A LIFE INSURANCE CLAIM

THE SMALLFIELD CASE. AUCKLAND, September 19. The Supreme Court was engaged to-day in hearing a claim for £SOOO by Mrs Lucy .mallfield, widow of Cecil R. Smallfield. a stock agent of Hamilton, against the Government life Insurance Commissioner. The commissioner sought a stay of proceedings on the ground that when the writ was issued there were points in dispute, and in terms of the policy these must not be settled by arbitration. Mr H. H. Ostler, counsel for Mrs Smallfield, objected and the case proceeded. Mr Ostler said that in the second policy over deceased’s life for £IO,OOO there was no provision for arbitration, and the widow’s claim thereunder was coming before the court in November. Mr W. M’VeagTi, for the commissioner, recounted the circumstances of Smallfield’s death, and the inquest at which the coroner found that death was due to heart failure. This was followed by an exhumation of the bodv and a verdict against heart failure. But it came out that carbolic acid was found in the remains of deceased. The arbitration clause in the policy under consideration was imperative. Mr M'Veagh read a number of letters from the commissioner, in one of which, dated July 22, he wrote: “And if the question of Smallfield having committed suicide, which I allege he did, arises, I submit the policy is void.” Mr Justice Adams: The commissioner sets up that his own policy is void, which seems an excellent reason for having the claim heard by the court, if the question of the validity of the policy is to come up. After further argument his Honor reserved his decision.