FISHERMEN IN WAR TIME 



county court judge and the case came before Mr. 

 Justice Lawrence and Mr. Justice Atkin. 



Both these judges delivered judgment to the same 

 effect, holding that the county court judge had come 

 to a wrong conclusion ; and they allowed the appeal. 

 Mr. Justice Lawrence said that the assured was a 

 fisherman, as stated on the form, but he was also 

 called up in the Royal Naval Reserve, a fact which 

 was not stated on the form, and the question was 

 whether his having been called up without the 

 statement of that fact vitiated the policy. In his 

 opinion it did not. True, there was a provision on 

 the form saying that omission or concealment of 

 material facts would render the policy void. But 

 the defendants made these contracts with ignorant 

 people, and had superintendents and district mana- 

 gers, who supervised the local agents and com- 

 municated information to the head office ; and here 

 the district manager was told that the fisherman 

 was in the Naval Reserve, and it was only reason- 

 able to suppose that telling the manager was equiva- 

 lent to telling the head office. Communications 

 made to such a person would be assumed by any 

 reasonable assured person to be communicated to 

 the head office. The manager had no power to make 

 a new contract, but the old contract subsisted, and 

 any objection that might have been taken was 

 waived by the subsequent receipt of premiums. 



Allowing this particular appeal was a satisfactory 

 development of a case in which a powerful company 

 had by no means shown generous treatment of a 



13-1 



