£l0,000 CLAIM.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 November 1921, Page 5

£l0,000 CLAIM.

SEQUEL TO MAN’S DEATH. CLAIM FOR INSURANCE MONEY. REMARKABLE ALLEGATIONS. By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. Remarkable allegations were made by counsel for the defendant insurance company contesting a claim for £lO,OOO by Mrs Lucy Smallfield, widow, and sole executrix of Cecil Robert Smallfield, stock agent, Hamilton, in the Supreme Court. Defendant is the National Mutual Life Association of Australia, Ltd. For plaintiff Mr. Ostler said Smallfield had been a successful business man, his profits in the year to September before his death, which occurred on January 26, 1921, being about £lBOO. From September up to the time of his death, however, he made considerable losses, probably £l6OO or £l7OO. About February 18, 1920, Smallfield insured his life in the defendant office for £lO,OOO. His death occurred, plaintiff contended, from heart failure while he was bathing in the Waikato River. There was a clause in the policy stating that if an insured person died by suicide within thirteen months after the policy was taken out the policy should be void. Hie Honor: Died by his own hand; that might have a different meaning. Mr. Ostler: That is so. That if he died by his own hand, whether sane or insane, the policy should be void. Practically all the facts proving that plaintiff was entitled to the £lO,OOO had been admiteijl, saving the cause of death. SUICIDE ALLEGIED.

Mr. Neave, for the insurance association, said defendant’s case was that Smallfield died by his own hand, and that the policy was void for that reason. Dealing with deceased’s financial position counsel said the second premium was payable in February, 1921. About the middle of J 920 Smallfield had purchased a farm, putting down a very small deposit, the price for the place being very high. Counsel said he would show that the farm constituted a serious encumbrance upon deceased’s finances. It would be shown that at the time of death he owed about £BOOO to vendors of stock, and in addition he owed Hamilton tradesmen something like £BOO and various other sums, sev--era! of which, were secured by mortgage, including one of £lOOO to a man to whom he owed, that amount of money. The change in the financial position about the end of 1920 came as something like a shock. On December 8 his bankers wrote informing Smallfield that Iris overdraft was £3OOO and limiting the overdraft to £lOOO, with an occasional strain to £l5OO. The bank wrote two other letters, the third being dated January 25, stating that the account was in debit to £B5B. Some very curious facts had to be narrated, said Mr. Neave, in regard to Smallfield’s conduct between the date when he the first letter from the bank and the day he disappeared. Early in December a most peculiar conversation took place between him and an insurance agent. This matter was put forward as suggesting the motive which animated Smallfield in what he was alleged by defendant to have done. It was proposed to show that the idea of suicide and the benefits that would accrue from insurance policies had been present in hie mind for some considerable time. REPORT OF A BET.

An insurance agent was passing a Hamilton hotel one day when Smallfield came out and opened up the conversation by saying: “You are the very man lam wanting to see. I have had a bet with a man in the hotel; it is about my policy. I bet him £lOO that the money is not payable if I commit suicide.” The agent explained the circumstances under which the money was payable in* case of suicide. The clause was the same in nearly every insurance policy, namely that if an assured person commits suicide within thirteen months 6f the issue of the policy the policy was void. At that time Smallfield was insured for £5OOO in the Government ijfe Department, the policy having been current for several years. The defendant company’s suggestion was that Smallfield wanted to ascertain how he stood in the event of his suicide.

Mr. Neave asked the jury to believe that there was no bet made with any man in that hotel. On the Sunday prior to the Wednesday on whicl^Smallfield disappeared he made a wager with a friend and an employee named Harold Burbush as to which of them could swim across the Waikato, river and back. Counsel asked the jury to believe Smallfield had a motive in making the wager, and that he had an idea of committing suicide by drowning. Burbush and his brother went to the river with Smallfield and they were all swimming when Burbus'h’s brother noticed Smallfield was breathing heavily. The two brothers saw Smallfield disappearing, but were, able to rescue him, and he was brought' ashore in a fainting condition. Plaintiff put forward an explanation that the incident was due to a heart attack, but apparently Smallfield never consulted a medical man. Strangely enough Smallfield went again to the river the following day. On the day of his death SmallAeld lifted his insurance policies from the bank, where they had been for some time, and after reading them deposited them with his accountant, Harry Cracknell. It was also strange that Smallfield instructed his accountant to draw a certain cheque, which exhausted his credit balance of about £l5OO, which by some, means Smallfield had been able to accumulate the previous day. Counsel said the jury was not concerned with whether the cause of death was carbolic acid poisoning or drowning, or a combination of both.

The case for plaintiff was confined to counsel’s address, with the right to call rebutting evidence. It is expected the case will occupy two more days.