"FORGERIES"

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 142, 17 June 1932, Page 9

"FORGERIES"

WOMAN'S SIGNATURE

JUDGE GIVES^HIS VIEW . __ J

MRS. JOHNSON'S CLAIMS

* Late yesterday afternoon in the Supreme Court, when the final stages of the Johnson case tve^e entered upon, Mr. justice Reed intimated to counsel that his view was that Mrs. Johnson's signature" had been forged on the in-surance-documents, exhibits in the ease, and without making a charge .against anyone, his Honour added that in his opinion the forgeries were the work of two persons. • i

It is on allegations of forgery against her husband, John Randolph Johnson, that Mrs. Elizabeth Ivy Johnson bases her claims for £500 and £260 respectively, said to be due under accident policies, from the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance. Society, Ltd., and the Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. The final portion of the evidence (reported in another column) was completed yesterday afternoon. A start was then made with counsel's address on the facts and on the law, and,these were continued-to-day. ' "...

His Honour pointed out that the onus was' very strongly Upon the plaintiff to prove forgery. In regard to the course he proposed following in connection /with the\ handwriting experts' evidence, his Honour y quoted' from observations on the subject by Lord Justice Serutton. -

Counsel for the plaintiff's husband addressed the Court first. In reply to a question by coiinsel, his Honour said his view was that Mrs. Johnson's allegations as to how she came by her injuries had nothing to do with the,present case; 5 ■ •'.'■• ■■'-.-

VALUE OF PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE. :

" Except, I submit, for the purpose. of helping to weigh the value of the plaintiff's evidence,'' "suggested- counsel, who described the, plaintiff's story as being • 'fantastic from beginning to end." Counsel also contended that if

the plaintiff had any claim she had shown wanton delay in bringing it, which embarrassqd ,the defence and hampered the evidence. •

His Honour said his view was that Mrs. Johnson's: signature had been forged. At a later stage.1 he added: "Without making any charge I might say the- forgeries, in my opinion were done by two, persons.'*

Counsel for Johnson argued that it would be dangerous to' form a definite conclusion on the" point on the handwriting evidence, alone. ; :

When counsel had concluded; his address the Court adjourned until today. .'' .■.,■':'■■■."'■ ;'"'. -": '

When the Court resumed to-day counseifor the- Commercial XJnibn began his address. . ' ~ / , ' . Replying to a question/from counsel, his Honour said that in coming to the conclusion-: that Mrs. Johnson's signature had been forgedj; in addition fo comparing tho .writing on the, questioned documents with tho authentic writing of Mrs, Johnson, he -had taken Other matters into,' consideration—ilie evidence relating to the' witnessing ijf

tho signature and that in regard to the dates on which the documents .were ;said to be signed. He had studied the docu-

ments again since the Court rose yesterday afternoon, and,he was still more firmly of the opinion that the documents ,were forgeries. ; Counsel suggested that if the documents had\not been perused until after the close of the evidence, tho position might have been different in his Honour's mind. '/OBVIOUS FORGERIES." His Honour: "I cannot conceive of anyone-looking at those documents and comparing them without seeing that the signatures 'obviously, -were forged! Frankly, I would very much like to come to the other conclusion, because one naturally sympathises with the insurance, companies when they have paid out, but the view that the documents are forgeries is absolutely forced upon me.''

With regard to the whole of tho circumstances of the .'case, 'counsel said that although ho mado no suggestion that Mrs. Johnson had perjured herself in the witness box,, it was submitted that she must have impressed the Court as being unreliable in her evidence.

Counsel then dealt with the question of whether in view, of tho delay that had occurred in bringing the action Mrs. Johnson was not stopped from, recovering from, the insurance companies.He quoted a number of cases in support of his submissions. COUNSEL HOPEFUL. Counsel for.tho T. and G. Society said that notwithstanding'his Honour's expressions on the question of the facts, ho did not despair and. was not without hope of being, able to convince, the Court that the signature to the document on which the T. and G.'paid out should be accepted as genuine. If tho document on which tho company paid out was not proved to be a forgery, then' the company must succeed, even though every signature after it might bo a forgery. Hia Honour:;"I think you are quite right, but' the fact that a whole.lot of other documents are forgeries certainly, would assist in a consideration of whether this document is a forgery.™ Counsel submitted that the signature on the receipt had been proved, or at least had been left in such a position that the Court could not say it was a forgery.- He relied very strongly on the evidence of Matron Davis as being strong corroboration of the fact that a document was signed by Mrs. Johnson in B.owen Street -Hospital shortly after her operation, and tho T. and G. document was dated tho day after the operation. The evidence of Mrs. Brown was also of very great importance. It was,, submitted that it was clear Mrs. Brown visited the hospital within a few days of Mrs. Johnson's operation. Apart from the facts, counsel also dealt with 'the question of estoppel. / It was submitted that as soon as Mrs. Johnson found that the moneys had been obtained from the insurance companies without her authority it was her duty to inform the insurance companies. The companies, it was claimed, had suffered an appreciable detriment in not knowing of Mrs. Johnson's allegation prior to the settlement effected between- Johnson and his wife. .

At the time of going to pressj counsel for the T. and G. Society had not concluded his argument. The argument of counsel for the plaintiff also had to be heard. \ •.