THE SMALLFIELD CLAIM

Taranaki Daily News, 20 September 1921, Page 8

THE SMALLFIELD CLAIM

DECISION RESERVED. Bi Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Sept. 19. The Supreme Court hearing of the claim for £5OOO by Mrs. Lucy Smallfield, widow of Cecil R. Smallfield, stock agent, Hamilton, against the Government Life Assurance Commissioner was the subject of an application by the Commissioner, who sought a stay of proceedings on the ground that when the writ was issued there were points in dispute and in the terms of the policy these must be settled by arbitration.

Mr. Ostler, counsel for Mrs. Smallfield, objected and the case proceeded. Mr. Ostler said that, in the second policy over deceased’s life, for £lO,OOO, there was no provision for arbitration and the widow’s claim thereunder was coming before the Court in November. Mr. M'Veagh, for the Commissioner, recounted the circumstances of Mr. Smallfield’s death and the inquesr, at which the Coroner found that death was from heart failure. That was followed by the exhumation of the body. The verdict was again heart failure, but it came out that carbolic acid was found in the remains of deceased. The arbitration clause in the policy under consideration was imperative. Mr. M'Veagh read a number of letters from the Commissioner, in one of which, dated July 22, he wrote: “And the question if Smallfield committed suicide, which I allege he did' arises, I submit that the policy is void.”

Mr. Justice Adams: That the commissioner sets up that his own policy is void seems an excellent reason for ‘having the claim heard by the Court, if the question of the validity of the policy is to come up after further argument. His Honor reserved decision.