COURT OF APPEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 33, 2 August 1911, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL.

LIFE INSURANCE CASE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Tuesday. Before the Court of Appeal to-day the case Lucena v. National Mutual life Association of Australia is being heard. The case raised some interesting questions as to what extent communications made by a doctor to a patient or a patient to a doctor in the course of consultation are privileged from disclosure in courts of law. The question turns on the construction of section 8 (3) of the Evidence Act, 1908. The defendant company tendered evidence, which was objected to by plaintiff, ol information gained by observation durlng,,an jexapiinatip?i and later during an •opera tiojf toil'plaitytift. i • Mr.'-i-ftftdijreli appears for the defendant fflMnpainy in support of the application j to admit evidenije, and''Mf. W. 1 H. D. Bell for plaintiff, to pbject. | Wellington, Last Night. [ In the case Lucena v. the National Mutual Insurance Company, the Court reserved judgment. ~,,THE MEWHINNEY CASE. ' Wellington, Last Night The. court is now occupied ill hearing an appeal by Oliver Mewhinney against a decree giving the custody of his ehil-, dren to : Mrs.. Mewhinney, the case ari?r ingoufe-of divorce proceedihgs. Mewhiwnev is conducting, the appeal personally, and Mr. A: Gray is appearing for Mrs. Mewhinney. Mewhinney was some time ago imprisoned for a fortnight for contempt of court in refusing to give tip the children.