LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1482, 3 July 1912, Page 11

LAW REPORTS.

IMPORTANT INSURANCE POINTIN COURT OF APPEAL. ■MATTER OF SURRENDER VALUE. Certain somewhat important questions as'to the effect-of Sections 63 and 61 of thn Life Insurance Act, 1903, came before the Court of-Appeal yesterday in tho form of an originating summons, which, had been removed, from tho Supremo CouTt by direction of tho presiding Judge. On tha Bench yesterday were Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Denniston, and Mr. Justico Edwards. Tho parties to the action, were Brenda Bentrico liced, wife of Dr, J. L. Reed, of Waipawn, plaintiff, and tho Equitable Lifo Assurance Society of tho United States defendants. Mr. C. B. Morison appeared for Mrs. Reed, nnd Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C., with . him Mr. F. F. \Ncwiu<in, appeared for the Equitable Lifo Assurance Society. From the statement of facts it appeared that in March, 1902, Mrs. Reed insured her lifo with the Equitable Society for tho sum of .£IOOO- payable at death or in 25 years. Payment of half-yearly premiums was continued for- five years, but in 1907, Mrs. Reed' failed'to reply to tho usual notice to pay the premium acting, as she alleged,.and as the society (for th 9 purpose of these proceedings) admitted, on the faith of tho provisions for tho jssUo of a paid-up endowment'policy. She did not further communicate with the society until June, 1909, when," believing that sho was entitled .to tho cash value of tho paid-up endowment policy, which sho assumed had been issued, she vrroto inquiring what steps she should take to draw the sum of .£l3l due to her. The sooiety replied that, up till July 21, 1909, they had advanced ogainst tl\e surrender value of the policy tho sum of .£lO3 2s. Gd. premiums and £1 6s. 6d. interest, and that the surrender value, having increased to ,£156, there was ft balance of .£45 31s. They suggested' that she should take a loan on tho policy of. .£lB2 as at - the end of tho next year, 'i'hon, after the deductions for premium nnd interest, she would bo entitled to a payment of ,£-15 -Is. lOd. in addition to having her life covered for another twelve months. No reply was recei'vcd to this or to further letters to Mrs. Reed, nnd in September, 1910, tho society advised that the surrender valuo was no longer sufficient to meet premiums and interest, and that tho policy would lapse unless payments wero renewed. After further co'rlespondenco between the parties • it was decided to obtain a judgment of tho Court on the-matter.

The questions submitted to tlio Court for answer were:—

Under tho tonus of tho. now guaranteed cash valuo. policy was the society required to continue such policy in force (aftor Mrs. Reed had ceased to pay re- • miums) by applying tho surrender vflluG ' for that purposo (so long as such value existed) unless Mrs. Reed expressly notified tho socioty of the dcsiro to ccaso payment, and required the society to issue a paid-up policy in exchange for tho original policy? ;TVas Mrs. Heed entitled, ipso factor," without any notification on her part (on her ceasing to pay premiums) to the automatic issue of a paid-up endowment policy for tho appropriate amount stated on the policy under the heading "paid-up endowment granted ' automatically unless other payment i selected?"

Did the society remain liable (in tho event the death of plaintiff, whilo a surrender value existed) to pay to her representatives.tho full amount of the

original policy, less, only the sums applied in payment of interest and premiums? Whether Mrs. Reed, by accepting the policy issued, waived tho benefit of tho. specinl statutory provisions for ,the .henefit .of policy-holders requiringiifi insurance companies to apply the surrender value in keeping the policy on foot? .

Was such waiver (if'any) effectual to dis- . chargo the society from its liability (if any) to apply surrender values to keep the policy cn foot? Legal, argument occupied until nearly 4 p.m., when the Court reserved decision, end adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W, G. Riddel], S.M.) DETAINED LUGGAGE. THE BOARDER WINS HIS CASE. Henry E. May, commercial traveller, claimed from Jean Collins, boardinghousekeeper; and May's recent landlady, the sum of as damages for alleged detention of his luggngo. It appeared from tho proceedings that May was about to change his residence, and, having settled upon another abode, dispatched a carter to Mr. Collins's house to collect and remove his cffoots. Mr. Collins, however, refused to allow the carter to reiriovo them until nn account for two duys' rent, amounting to 12s. Gd., had been settled. His Worship gavo judgment in favour of the plaintiff for 155., with costs and witnesses' expenses, amounting to 12s. In doing so the magistrate remarked that boardinghouse-keepcrs who thus detained tho luggage of tlie departing boarders laid thomselves open to ail action for damages. Mr. H. Buddie was for the plaintiff, Bud Mr. A. Salek for tho defendant.

CLUMSY ENGLISH OF AWAKDS. Mr. Eiddell reserved decision in a case In which tho Inspector of Awards (Mr. Carmody) proceeded against Clara Treronning,_ private hotel-Keeper, for employing (during tho months of April and Slay, 19)2) a woman as cook, and paying her only £2 per week, instead of £2 os., which v."SS the wage stipulated by tho award. . The defence set up was that two persons were employed in tho kitchen, one a.s a cook and tho other a.s kitahenman. The uohedulo relating to such employment in private hotels uses the word "second" in such a way as to leave reasonable doubt whether it is to bo construed "second cook" or "second hand." Mr. M. Myers, who appeared for Mrs. Tregonning, submitted that it should read "second cook." If that were the correct reading, his client had not committed an offonco.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. William Hobbs, dentist, laid a claim for jOl 16s. for professional services rendered to L. R. A. Bothell. Mr. T. Holmden appeared for plaintiff, and Sir. J. J. Jl'Grath for defendant. Plaintiff asserted that he had entered into a contract with defendant whereby ho was to makoti dental plate for On tho other hand defendant contended that the price arranged between them was 30s. _ His Worship remarked that plaintiff had failed to prove the spccial contract which his .case depended on, mid therefore oon.su i ted hi m. ; TE MOMI LAND AND SHARES. Judgment was delivered by. Jlr. Uiddell in a c'jse wherein the Te Jlomi Land Company, Ltd., sued F. Ross, claiming -£8."! for arrears on calls alleged to bo due on shares. The calls worn struck on September, 1003, March,and October, 1910, anil October, 1011. Defendant, it was tinted, was one of a number of persons who had entered into nil agreement with Mir. E. J. Riddiford respecting the purchase of a block of land in the Lower Hutt district. Sonio or all of these persons, including defendant, had become shareholders in tho company. The company had certain dealings with the representatives of Jlr. liiddiford which required the consent of all the co-owners, and tho directors of the company requested tho co-owners to sign an agreement giving them authority to negotiate with Jlr. Riddiford's representatives. At first defendant had refused to sign, but had dono so when tho directors agreed to give him a complete discharge and indemnity from all present and futuro claims in connection with his shares. In tho directors' letter to defendant Ross it was set out that he was to surrender and forfeit all interest in the shares of the company provided that he made a statutory declaration that he had no means of paying, the calls on the shares. The directors, at a subsequent meeting,

passed a resolution withdrawing the offer made, but there was no evidence to show that defendant was notified of this molution until February 18. 1912. Subsequently ;he received a letter Irom tlio directors drawing attention to tho fact that ho had not made the declaration and notifying him that tho offer, had been withdrawn. The defendant stated that ho thought that the company's secretary had to forward tho declaration to him.

His Worship, in delivering judgment, said: "It seems to mo that as defendant has executed the main part of tho contract, and has been all along prepared to give tho required declaration, tho plaintiff cannot tako the benefit of part performance, and at the samo time, preserve its rights against the defendant under his original contract with the company. I think plaintiff must be nonsuited." No costs were allowed. Mr. P. \Y. Jackson appeared for To Moini Land Company, Ltd., and .Mr. E. C. Levvey for 11 r. Ko;s. undefended cases. , In the following undefended oases judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff by default:—H. I'rice and Co., Ltd., v. Wm. Geo. Logan, X' 2, costs 95.; CI. R. Wilton v. Alex Dickson, .£3 18s., costs 12s.;' Brewer, Fulton and Co. v. F. B. I'armar and Co:, ,£ll Bs. Bd., costs .£1 10s. lid.; Jas. A. Doherty v. W. Higgins, £2, costs 10s.; Wellington Traders' Agoncv (assignees-of Maurico Fisher) v. R, A.'Duke, .61 17s. lid., costs 155.; Easson Ltd. v. Peacock and Co., .£2 10s., costs 55.; A. M. G. Ward v. Ernest E. Cohen, .£4 155., costs 10s.; L. Caselberg and Co. v. Mrs. F. C. Duff, £3 35., costs 10s.; A. Levy v. Elizabeth Phillips, ,£-t 10s., costs 55.; same v. I'rank Morton, i:l 2s. Gd., costs 55.; Gollin and Co. v. Grange and Son, £16 lis. lid., costs £3 65.; Whitcombe and Tombs v. Lyons and Co., £2 155., costs 10s.; Wellington Traders* Agency (assignee for. Kcmpthorne, Prosser and Co., Ltd.), v. Bromley Hill, ,£l6B 12s. 2d., costs £1 14s. j Walter Whiting v. Chos. Physic, £!> 10s., costs i;l 3s. Gd.; L. Caselberg and Co. v. Hardy Bros., £2 lis., costs 10s.

JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Frederick Orchard was ordered to pay .£8 6s. to Tlios. Scott by July 16. POLICE BUSINESS. MOSTLY THEFT CHARGES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddel!, S.M.) For insobriety John S. M'Donald and Harry Spencer were fined 10s. each; Ellen Dalton was fined 55.; nnd Richard Driscoll 205., nnd was made the subject of a prohibition order. Patrick M'Randlo was remanded for curative treatment.

On two charges of theft, Harry Herman Grill and Sydney Grill both pleaded guilty. The former was sentenced to ouo month's imprisonment on each charge, and the latter to fourteen (Jays' detention, tho sentence 1 in each case to run concurrently. Both admitted stealing one dozen pairs sox, one sliirt, and a hat from Messrs. George and George's shop. Sydney Grill further admitted stealing an overcoat (value .£2 55.), tho property of V. 11. Wallace. Harry Grill admitted stealing some tin (value .£2 165.) from the Union Steam Ship Co.

Frederick AV. Keeper, who was convicted of stealing a ring valued at J:6, in 1911, was ordered to pay .£•'(. The default was fourteen days' imprisonment.

Norman AV. Scambury, a young man employed by S. and W. M'Kay, bookseller, was brought before the Court on a charge of stealing various articles from the shop. The value of the 'articles was £2 4s. 9d. He was remanded until to-day for sentence. '

MOUNT COOK COUUT. At the Mount Cook Police Court yesterday morning, before Mr. AV. Light, J.P.,; tho following offenders wcro dealt withfor insobriety:—AVilliam M'Leod, Alexander M'Donald, and two first offenders, who wero on Kail, were each fined 10s., with tho alternative of forty-eight hours' detention. John Power wns convicted and discharged. _