INSURANCE MONEY

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 222, 15 June 1932, Page 10

INSURANCE MONEY

Validity of Signatures WIFE’S LOSS OF LEG Ohau Crossing Affair The validity of the signatures on documents signed at the time the money was said to have been paid was the subject of close questioning in the Supreme Court yesterday when the case in which Mrs. Elizabeth Ivy Johnson is claiming £760 from two insurances. Mr. Justice Reed was on the bench. The action arose from an accident at the Ohau railway crossing, -where Mrs. Johnson’s leg was crushed, subsequently having to be amputated. It was admitted that not all the witnesses who signed the forms actually witnessed the signatures appended. A handwriting expert said in his opinion the questioned signatures were those of Mrs. Johnson.

The defendant companies are the ; Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., ■ against -whom Mrs. Johnson claims • £260, and the Australasian Temper- ; ance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., against whom there . is a claim for £5OO. The plaintiff’s husband has been described by counsel as . a third party to the proceedings. Yes- , terday was the sixth day of the trial, which commenced on June 2. Johnson was in the box all day on Monday, and had been under cross-ex- ' amination by counsel for Mrs. Johnson ■ for some time when the court rose. Yes--1 terday the witness was closely ques- ! tioned as to who filled in the body of 1 certain documents, receipts and cheques > and also as to who signed them, and • the dates on which these events > happened. Witness admitted that the ■ witnesses who signed certain forms did not actually see Mrs. Johnson sign the i documents, neither did Mrs. Johnson ; tell them that the signatures were hers. ; In connection with one form a letter . was received from the Insurance com- . pany saying it would be necessary for it to be signed by Mrs. Johnson in the , presence of a witness. Counsel: Yet you deliberately adopted another practice by getting it signed without attesting witnesses?—“Not deliberately.” Saw Mrs. Johnson Sign. Called by counsel for the T. and G. Company, Edwin Leonard Goodwin, who up to December, 1930, had been for many years in the employ of Johnson, said he visited Bowen Street Hospital in company with his employer, and saw Mrs. Johnson sign th T. and G. receipt form. She was reclining in bed, having been made comfortable, and signed the document on a table at the side of the bed. Counsel: She signed and you witnessed the signature?—“Yes”; witness adding that Mr. Johnson then took possession of the document To counsel for Mrs. Johnson witness said he was not aware that Mr. Johnson was unable to pay wages for the week in which he got the cheque for £5OO. Counsel: Didn’t you know that Johnson was pressed for money?—“l might have had an idea that he was.” Oh, thank you, Mr. Goodwin. About a fortnight before this wasn’t he in arrear in his wages for some two or three weeks?—“l don’t know.” But you were the bookkeeper, Mr. Goodwin? —“I can’t remember. You are asking me to remember something which took place some two years ago.” But you see you can remember everything so nicely when counsel for the T. and G. asks you, but when it comes to questions about your own wages you can’t, remember. Will you deny that in June, 1930, while Mrs. Johnson was in hospital, the wages of the men were in arrear for two or three weeks?—“No, I won’t deny it.” In further cross-examination witness said he remembered having told Mrs. Johnson that he bad deposited a statement'with a Mr. Brown, solicitor, and that it contained -the “truth about Johnson." Admitted He Lied. Pressed by counsel as to whether he had made such a statement, witness replied that he said it to “bluff” Mrs. Johnson in order to get money out of her. Counsel for Johnson objected to the way in which counsel for plaintiff was questioning Goodwin, when his Honour remarked: “Witness has admitted that he lied for the purpose of. obtaining money from Mrs. Johnson.” Counsel for plaintiff (to witness) : Did you say if she would help you, you would help her?—“No.” You asked her for help?—“l asked her for help.” Could you help her? —“No.” Not in the way of money, but in the way of information about Johnson; in particular, about this receipt which you now say you saw signed?—“l couldn’t help her.” Witness admitted there was a conversation in the room at the Bowen Street Hospital 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 wages until the £5OO was paid in. The amount in the bank was about £22, and £45 was wanted for wages. Claud Hamilton Hudson, manager of the T. and G. Company, gave evidence as to the issue of the cheques and obtaining the teceipts. The money was paid to her husband. In the 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. Handwriting Expert For the Commercial Union Company, counsel called Herbert Phillip Mourant, public accountant and handwriting expert, who said his services were often called upon by the Crown in cases of forgery. In his opinion the signature on the receipt for the money from the Commercial Union was in the handwriting of Mrs. Johnson. His opinion wa§ the same in respect of three or four other documents which he was asked to examine. He proceeded to explain technically why be had reached those conclusions, attributing certain differences partly to the use of different pens. One signature which had been questioned had been written more deliberately, and that might have been because it represented money. Witness was called up on to the 1 bench to explain details of some of the 1 variations in the signatures, and why ; he came to the conclusion that the 1 signatures were all made by the same person, Mrs. Johnson. s Counsel for Mrs. Johnson cross- 1 examined witness at some length for < the purpose of showing that the differences between admitted signatures of 1 Mrs. Johnson and those in question < showed that the latter were forgeries. ’ The hearing was adjourned until ' 10.39 on Thursday morning, 1 t