INSURANCE MONEY

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 141, 16 June 1932, Page 12

INSURANCE MONEY

MRS. JOHNSON'S CLAIMS

VALIDITY OF SIGNATURES

EXPERT'S EVIDENCE

Cross-examination of Herbert Phillip Mourant, public accountant, was continued by counsel for the plaintiff in the Supreme Court to-day when the hearing was resumed before Mr. Justice Eeed of tho case in which Mrs. Elizabeth Ivy Jqhnson alleges that her husband, John Eandolph Johnson, a builder, forged her signature and obtained insurance moneys payable to her under accident policies from, tho Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., and tho Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. Mrs. Johnson is claiming £500 from the T. and G. Society and £260 from the Commercial Union.

Mr. Mourant was called by counsel for the Commercial Union to give evidence as to the validity of the signatiires on the various insurance documents which are exhibits in tho case. Before tho Court adjourned on Tuesday afternoon until to-day, Mr. Mourant had expressed the view that the signature- on the. questioned documents was that of Mrs. Johnson herself.

Counsel' for the plaintiff asked' witness if he had compared the alleged forgeries with specimens of the handwriting of Johnson and the witness Goodwin, who gavo evidence for the defence on Tuesday. Witness replied that he had had a brief opportunity of doing so this .morning. In answer to another question, witness said his, opinion was that the person who wroto "84, Ellieo street" on exhibit G also wrote the signature. "And I take it, Mr. Mourant, that that answer would apply also to the '84, Elliee1-street,' on ? exhibit F?"— "NO." I."""-' THE TOP OF THE "E." • Ecplying to his Honour, witness said ho did not iind the same curly top to the "E" shown on an exhibit produced, in any of Mrs. Johnson's admitted signatures. In answer to. another question from counsel for the .plaintiff, witness said that in the "suspect documents he thought tho writing was more studied and to his mmd it indicated that possibly tho person responsible for the writing was not in the best of health. •By studied he meant, written with more care and slowly; but not studied for the purpose of forgery. . ■ "Provided these ■ signatures are authentic?"— " That is what I. think." Witness' also added that in the course of .his evidence on Tuesday ho said that it was likely- more care would be taken, in signing the documents because they represented money. . ; . • • Counsel for the Commercial Union said he had only one further witness to call, but since the adjournment on Tuesday counsel for the T. and G. Society had been informed of v, witness, who, it was believed, was able to give some valuable evidence as to- Mrs. Johnson having signed documents. His Honour said he saw no, objection to the witness'being called. VISITS T^ MBS. JOHNSON. ' Doris Maiy Brown, wife: of Win ton Brown, solicitor/ of Wellington, said she knew Mr. Hudson,' secretary of the T. and G. Society. Apparently in speaking to Mr. Hudson recently she had given him some information, although she did not; realise she was doing-so at tho time, and ha,d been brought to Court to: give evidence on. a- subpoena. She also knew Mrs. Johnson and visitbd" her about three'times while she wasJih' Bowen street hospital.. On one'occasion" Mrs. Johnson expressed disappointment that her husband had not been in to see her. Witness stayed with Mrs. Johnson a good time because she.was really quite ill and .witness was distressed about herl 'i Counsel for tjie T< arid G. Society: "Was there anything discussed on that occasion about papers?" Mrs.' Brown said that in the course of conversation Mrs.- Johnson mentioned that she had'signed papers. Witness thought they would be cheques. ''Did she tell you anyone else was present?"—"lt. is rather hard to recollect, but I can remember her mentioning the matron of the .hospital and John, .her husband, as being preserit when she signed these, pa-pers." • "Did she tell.you, Mrs. Brown, what the papers were wanted for?"—-"Well, the reason for' signing the papers was to get'some money."

"Frbnr what she told you, did you understand, she "signed papers on only one occasion or more than one?"—"I can. recollect .her saying she signed something at Levin, but it is. not absolutely clear." : . ' '

"Buf the reference to the matron was at Bowen street?"—-"Yes." ■

Replying to counsel for the plaintiff, Mrs. Brown said, Bhe remembered Mrs. Johnson mating, the allegation to her sometime afterwards that John- (Mr. Johnson) had forged her name in connection with insurance moneys;

Witness said it was after Mrs. Johnson camo out of hospital that she alleged her husband had forged her name. When Mrs. Johnson referred to having signed, papers she did not say- what the papers were. ■ Witness got a shook as a result of what Mrs. Johnson told her. ! '.■"•• ■:" ■ ■

(Proceeding.)