TEN THOUSAND CLAIM.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 May 1922, Page 4

TEN THOUSAND CLAIM.

THE SMALLFIELD CASE. ECHO IN APPEAL COURT’. By Teleffraph.—Press Association. Wellington, May 1. The Appeal Court began the hearing to-day of the ease of the National Mutual Life Association of Australasia v. Smallfield in an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Stringer. Respondent is the widow of the late C. R. Smallfield, of Hamilton, who was insured for £10,600. This was contested on the grounds of suicide, but the jury at the first hearing decided in respondent’s favor. The appellant then asked leave to amend the defence. Leave was refused and the association now appeals. Mr. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. W. Johnston, is appearing for the appellants, and Messrs. Ostler and Delamere for the respondent. Wellington, Last Night. In continuation of his argument before the Court of Appeal in the case of the National Mutual Life Association of Australasia, Ltd. v. Smallfield, Mr. Gray stated that appellant asked that Mr/Justice Stringer’s judgment should be reversed, but the company could not complain if a new trial wa< ordered. The evidence before Mr. Justice Stringer established, he contended, the proposed amended defence. The evidence for re-

spondent showed that Smallfield had •been rejected from military service. It was his duty to disclose this in his proposal for insurance, but he had not done so. The evidence also showed that Smallfield must have known that hie health- was not good and he! had in his proposal stated it was. .He had warranted the truth of all answers in his proposal for insurance. There had been not only mis-statement, but there had also been non-disclosure of the material facts of hie rejection for military service. He contended therefore that the policy was void. Mr. Johnston also addressed the Court < in support of appellant’s contentions. reasonable man, he said, could have truthfully answered the questions as Smallfield answered them in his proposal for insurance. Mr. Ostler, for the respondent (Lucy Smallfield), dealt at length with the history of the case. He pointed out that the insurance company had known more than six months before the trial that Smallfield had been rejected for military service and yet had not raised the point until the trial was nearly over. Argument is proceeding.