DEEMED DEAD

Evening Star, Issue 23682, 16 September 1940, Page 4

DEEMED DEAD

BAKER WHO DISAPPEARED * INSURANCE COMPANIES TAKE CASE TO APPEAL [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, September 16. Tho disappearance of William Alfred Joseph Suiter Montgomery, a baker, while on • his daily round delivering bread at.Ngatea, near Thames, on February 3, 1936, and the question of payment of his life insurance are occupying the attention of the Appeal Court to-day. Montgomery’s van was found near the wharf on P.iako River, but no trace of Montgomery has been found since then. At the time of his disappearance he was in good health and sound financial position, and there appeared no reason why he should have taken his own life. The view commonly accepted in the district was that ho had accidentally fallen into the river, which was then somewhat flooded, and had been drowned. The Public Trustee, as holder of the will, dated 1925, applied in June last to the Supreme Court for an order granting leave to swear the death of the missing person, so that probate could bo granted and tho estate administered. This application was opposed by the A.M.P. Society, the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance, and the State Fire Office, in which Montgomery’s life was insured for a total of £3,000. Mr Justice Johnston, by whom the application was heard, gave leave to swear death, at the same time pointing out that the insurance could defend proceedings on the policy on the ground that there was no evidence of death. The Appeal Court to-day is hearing an appeal from this decision. Mr G. G. Watson, for the appellant insurance companies, to-day said the case was of general importance to all insurance companies, as Mr Justice Johnston’s judgment carried the state of the law further against insurance companies than it had been before, and made an order on facts which hitherto would not have_ been considered sufficient. He submitted that Mr Justice Johnston had adopted a wrong view of tho law, which, although correct in England, was wrong in New Zealand. , _ r . In New Zealand, continued Mr Watson. the effect of the Administration Act was that, ouco probate or letters of administration were obtained, tho onus was then thrown on the insurance companies to prove affirmatively that the missing person was not dead, but alive. In England the law placed no such burden on the companies._ Mr Justice Johnston, having accepted the law to be tho same as in England, approached the facts. in an attitude which he would not have adopted had ho been aware of the true effect of the Administration Act. Had the judge .approached tho facts in a correct 5 attitude, ho would not have held that tho evidence produced was sufficient to enaßle him to order asked for.