TRANSFER OF POLICY

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 138, 7 December 1929, Page 18

TRANSFER OF POLICY

CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE

JUDGE'S COMMENT- ON DEFENCE

The circumstances in which a life insurance policy for £250 taken out with the. National Mutual Life. Association by Frank Gaseoigno Milne was transferred to tlio Jatp Sarah Ellen Lally Nayldr, of Wellington, in 192G, were investigated in the Supreme Court yesterday, when Milne, a fancy goods dealer, of Palmerston North, sought a declaration that the policy belonged to him, and an order that the Public Trustee, executor of the estate, should! return it to him. The Chief Justice (the Hon. M. Myers) was on the Bench. Mr. M. F.. Luckie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.' H. F. O 'Leary, with him Mr. P. B. Broad, for the Public Trustee. In opening his ease> Mr. Luckie said the position was that the plaintiff had made the acquaintance of Miss Naylor six or seven years ago, and a friendship sprang up between them. At the beginning of 1926 the plaintiff had a conversation with Miss Naylor regarding his financial; difficulties in connection with his "business at Palmerston North. .Being entirely ignorant of the fact that ""the' policy was'a "full-life,' policy and was automatically protected against his creditors, he suggested to Miss Naylor that he should transfer it to her in order to.safeguard himself. Miss Naylor entirely disclaimed any personal" interest or, benefit, under the policy, but. agreed' to- accept the transfer and hold the policy in trust. The plaintiff signed atransfer on the back of the policy andsent it to Miss Naylor, requesting hereto sign an acceptance at the insurance company's office. This was done by Miss Naylor, and the policy was returned to the plaintiff. He held it up to the time of Miss Naylor's death, and paid all the premiums. Miss Naylor had never claimed any interest under the policy, said counsel, and the plaintiff understood that in the event of her death it was to revert to- him. It was significant that-no mention of the policy was made in Miss Naylor.?s will, although there was specific "reference to a sum of £100 owing to the'plaintiff. It could be proved that no consideration passed between the parties in connection with the transfer. ' Mr. O'Leary explained that the Public Trustee thought it desirable that the plaintiff should be put to the proof of his allegations. The Public Trustee would place all the availablo evidencebefore the Court, and would leave the Court to decide whether the claim had neen substantiated. Several witnesses gave evidence in support of Mr. Luckio's statements Called ,by Mr, O'Leary,. JEmily Kate Jmlner, a- married- wonum; living at Nelson, and a. sister of Miss Naylor, admitted having: writtenl to. the Public Trustee, alleging.'that, the plaintiff had found the poljcy among Miss Naylor's papers at the Hospital. His Honour: "Do you recognise that you are charging him with a very serious- offence %'■'■■ ■■.'■■ ■■'■■•■-Witness-I'did--not-' answer until the question had-"been repeated,- and she then; answered in the affirmative. His Honour: "Do you recognise you are charging him not only with theft, but with a very mean theft?"—" Yes. My sister's words to me were that she held the policy." Witness.-added,that she had defended the case on behalf of her sisters aad-brothets,—The~-.-lotter»in^-queation had been written on the instructions o£ her brother..-......^ ': .■;■' .His :HbnOiirj "-'.^People. should be more careful before making such serious statements as these." To Mr. Luekie, witness said that her sister had told her in effect tnat she had given value, for the policy. His Honour said; he had;no doubt' aboute the - case»yand he accepted tlie evidence.' givett;;by the plaintiff and- hisV witnes"ses..'ps^?i4,.n!ot":heatate->to'''iSy..' that ; he did not accept the evidence "of the last witness as to the alleged state-ment-made to her by her sister. It was all very well for a person to make charges in such an irresponsible fashion, but, in his opinion, there was no foundation^, for them, and it was a pity they were e.ver made. It sepmecP quite! ■ clear that'""the last'witness was" really the person responsible for the defence. The defence failed, and the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed. _ Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in teima"of. the application, with costs according to scale; witnesses' expenses and disbursements, and costs of discovery, £3 3s.