DISPUTED SIGNATURES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 140, 15 June 1932, Page 3

DISPUTED SIGNATURES.

WIFE'S INSURANCE CLAIM. i PECULIAR ALLEGATIONS. JOHNSON CASE ADJOURNED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. Evidence for the defence was continued in the Supreme Court to-day in the case in which Mrs. Elizabeth Ivy Johnson claimed £260 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 that she was travelling with her husband in a car to their house at Ranmati, and at the Ohau crossing, near Levin, her husband stopped the car at the railway line, and afterward held her on the line, one of her legs being crushed by the ensine.

The defence was that the companies had paid out the moneys due under the 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 tho grounds that the injuries were not the result of a motor accident.

Edwin Leonard Goodwin, called on behalf of the Temperance and General Society, gave evidence to-day of witnessing Mrs. Johnson in hospital sign a document produced in Court. She signed it on a table beside the bed. Mr. Johnson took possession of it after it was signed. Asked what Mrs. Johnson's condition was, witness said. "You could hardly expect her to be tit considering she had had a leg off," but otherwise he thought she was all right. Witness denied he had had many conversations with Mr. Johnson since the case began. Witness was cross-examined as to whether he did not know that Johnson's financial position was precarious at that time. To a question whether Johnson, about a fortnight before, was not in arrear in payment of wages for some two or three weeks, witness said he did not know.

Counsel: But you were the book keeper.

Witness said he could not remember He was being asked to remember something which took place two years ago.

Counsel: But, you see. you can remember anything; so nicely when counsel for the Temperance and General asks you, bait when it comes to it question about your own wages you can't remember. Will you deny that in June, 1930, ■while Mrs. Johnson was in hospital th© wages of the men wore in arrear for two or three weeks? Witness: No, I won't deny it. Witness admitted there was a conversation in the room at the Bowen Street at the time the document was signed. He could not recollect what the conversation was about, but he knew there was not enough money in the bank to pay the wages until £500 was paid in.

Claud Hamilton Hudson, manager of the Temperance and General Company, gave evidence as to the issue, of cheques and the obtaining of receipts. The money was paid to plaintiff's husband. In three letters written by the company there was nothing to suggest that they had informed Mrs. Johnson that they were paying out to her husband. The letters were addressed to Johnson.

For the Commercial Union Company counsel called Herbert Phillip Mourant, public accountant and handwriting expert, who said, in his opinion, the signature on the receipt for the money from the Commercial Union was in the handwriting of Mrs. Johnson. His opinion was the same in respect of three or four other documents which he was asked to examine.

Counsel for Mrs. Johnson crossexamined the witness at some length for the purposo of showing that differences between admitted signatures of Mrs. Johnson and those in question showed that the latter were forgeries. Th"e hearing was adjourned until Thursday morning.