THE SMALLFIELD CASE

Otago Witness, Issue 3556, 9 May 1922, Page 60

THE SMALLFIELD CASE

COURT S JUDGMENT RESERVED. WELLINGTON, ATay 1. The Court of Appeal is hearing argument in the case of the National Mutual Life Association of Australasia (Ltd.) v. Srnallfield, an appeal from the judgment of Air Justice Stringer directing judgment to be entered for the respondent. The respondent is the widow of the late C. K. Srnallfield, of Hamilton. He was insured with the appellant for £IO,OOO, and the respondent claimed that this sum was due under the policy. The defence filed, by the appellant alleged that deceased had died by his own hand. The 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. The appellant then asked leave to amend the defence on the ground that the evidence tendered on behalf of the respondent showed that deceased had failed to furnish 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. Air Justice Stringer refused leave to amend, and directed judgment to be entered for the respondent. From this judgment the Insurance Coriipany now appeals. Air A. Gray, K.C., with him Air N. S. Johnson, appeared for the appellant company, and Air H. H. Ostler, and with him Air Deiamare, for the respondent. Air Ostler raised the preliminary point as to whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal was not 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, and then legal argument was heard. ATav 2. The Appeal Court continued the hearing of the case of the National Mutual Life Association of Australia v. Srnallfield. The appeal is from the judgment of Mr Justice Stringer. The resnondent is the widow of the late 0. R. Srnallfield. of Hamilton, who was insured for £ 10;G09. 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. The court reserved judgment.