WIFE AND HUSBAND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 139, 14 June 1932, Page 9

WIFE AND HUSBAND.

INVOLVED INSURANCE CLAIM. LEVEL CROSSING ACCIDENT. DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Motions for a nonsuit, which were moved in the Supreme Court last week by counsel for the defence at the conclusion of evidence for Mrs. Elizabeth Ivy Johnson against tlie Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Assuiance Co., were dismissed by Mr. Justice Reed in reserved judgment, which was delivered yesterday, and a start was made with evidence for tlie defence. Mrs. Johnson claimed £200 from the Commercial Union Insurance Company, Limited, and £500 from the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, Limited, in respect of accident policies taken out with the companies. Plaintiff alleged tha,t she was travelling with lier husband in a car to their house at Raumati, and at the Oliau crossing, near Levin, her husband stopped the car at the railway line, and afterward held lier on the line, one of her legs being crushed by the

engine. Referring to Mrs. Johnson's allegation that her husband had deliberately placed her leg under the wheels of a train, his Honor°said that it was improbable that the husband, dragged her round, as his actions would have been visible to the engine driver. It was more probable that the cause of the injury was a wild jump from their motor car, and this was supported by the disinterested evidence of the engine driver and guard. The defence was that the companies had paid out the moneys due under tlie policies to plaintiff's husband, and that they held receipts alleged to have been signed by plaintiff. It was denied by plaintiff that she signed the receipts, and she alleged that they were forgeries. The companies amended their defence on the grounds that the injuries were not the result of a motor accident. Opening the case for the defence, counsel for Mrs. Johnson's husband said it was a matter of great satisfaction to the third party, Johnson to know lie would have an opportunity of meeting the charges made against him.

Husband Tells His Story. The husband, John Randolph Johnson, in evidence, said he was a builder and had lived in Wellington all his lite. He married plaintiff in 1914. From time to time he had given his wife various properties, about five altogether. His wife was of a jealous nature, and since an accident several years ago, in which her skull was fractured, she had bean very neurotic. Certain allegations made by plaintiff were denied. Referring to the night of the accident, witness said when approaching the Ohau railway crossing at a speed of about 30 miles an hour he saw a reflection of light 011 both rails. At the same instant Mrs. Johnson called out "train, John. He applied the brakes, and at the same time the wheel was wrenched out of his hand, presumably by Mrs. Johnson, who had a habit of doing that. The car swung round and dashed into the cattle stops on the crossing. Witness said he threw the car into reverse and gave the engine full power, but it would not move. He said, "Jump for it, Ive." Witness said ho jumped out and fell into the cattle stop. On turning round he saw Mrs. Johnson getting out on her side of the car. Witness put up his hands and at that instant the train hit the car. Tho train had slowed down. When he next saw his wife she was lying across the cattle stop. He asked her if she was hurt, and she said "My leg, John." The engine driver, Jamieson, was also there, and with his assistance witness removed Mrs. Johnson from tho stop and placed licr in a car which had pulled round in front of the pngine. Denial of Forged Signature. Witness said he did not hear his wife say "Why didn't you let me out?" or suggest anything to that effect. He visited his wife three times a week in Levin and she made no suggestion to him that he had tried to murder her. Money was needed to pay accounts in respect of his wife's properties, and as a result of a discussion they had liis wife said some insurance moneys would be coming in and he could fix up the accounts with that. Witness notified the Temperance and General Society and the Commercial Union of the accident. Continuing, witness said lie received a claim form from the Commercial Union and his recollection was that he filled it in and signed it on Mrs. Johnson's behalf. A receipt for £260 10/ was signed by Mrs. Johnson at Levin. He denied that the signature was a forgery. Witness obtained the money, and at Mrs. Johnson's suggestion paid it into his own banking account and drew upon the money for payment of interest, etc., on the properties. The Temperance and General claim form was signed by Mrs. Johnson and was posted from Levin. The signature on the two accident claim discharge forms on the Temperance and General Society was also Mrs. Johnson's. The forms were signed in witness' presence.

Similarly the receipt was signed by Mrs. Johnson, and also a form of policy discharge, stated the witness. At that time the Temperance and General Society had paid out £500 under the policy. None of the payments was concealed from Mrs. Johnson. Witnesses Wot Present. Replying to his Honor, witness said the moneys were paid out 011 Mrs. Johnson's properties. Alterations were made to the properties. Replying to counsel for plaintiff, witness said their married life was never happy. Counsel: You know the crossing welll —Yes. Counsel: Is it not a fact that when the car .got to the cattle stop you had already got out of the car? —That is a fabrication. Witness added that his wife did not jump over the front seat; neither did she faint in the back of the car. There was no time for fainting. When he looked down at Mrs. Johnson's leg it did not appear to have been injured. There was no bleeding. Ho took the shoe off her foot. Kathleen Davis, matron of the Bowen Street Hospital at the time Mrs. Johnson was operated on there, gave evidence of seeing Mrs. Johnson sign a document in the presence of her husband and another man. She was half raised in bed for the purpose. The matron did not know the nature of the document. Under cross-examination, the husband admitted that in the case of two of the receipts the men shown as attesting witnesses were not present when the receipts were signed by Mrs. Johnson, nor had Mrs. Johnson acknowledged the signature to them in tlicir presence. (Proceeding.)