FINAL STAGES

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 142, 17 June 1932, Page 5

FINAL STAGES

JOHNSON CASE

EVIDENCE COMPLETED

PLAINTIFF RECALLED

Evidence was completed'in the Supreme Court late yesterday afterndoa in the case in which Mrs." Elizabeth Ivy Johnson is claiming £500 from the Australasian Temperance and.General Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., and £260 from the Commercial Union Assurance Co., Lt.d. After one of the several counsel engaged in tha case had addressed the Court, the adjournment was taken until this morning.

Cecil William John Miller, Welling, ton branch manager of the Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., said that Mr. Johnson (plaintiff's husband) had been dealing with his company fof over twenty years. He had known Mr. " Johnson personally since their schooldays. Business relations between the company and Johnson had always beoa satisfactory. In the past there had been claims under insurance policies held by Mrs. Johnson. Johnson ■ did practically all the business in connection with, those claims, and with only one exception witnes could recollect,' payments by the company haa .beea, made to Johnson in each case. Mr. Justice Eeed: "When did you ' first know that the T. and G. was also concerned in this!"—" Not until after' we paid out. It would be about FebV ruary, 1931. My first recollection of it is that two officials from the T. and G. came round.to.see me about it:" PAYMENTS TO HUSBAND. Continuing, witness said that John-' son came to Mm and; askedy-whether it would be possible to lift Tinsurane« moneys, because the Levin Hospital had asked him to make a payment.". Witness told Johnson he could have the money provided he secured Mrs. Johnson's signature. Subsequently Johnson presented the required form, signed - and completed. After having compared - the signature with Mrs. Johnson's sig- •' nature on the proposal form, according--to the usual practice, he made a pay- " ment to Johnson. The next lie heardI.' about the matter was towards the end" of 1930, when Mr. Shakes, an officer-' of the company, told him that Mrs. - Johnson had said that she had not- received, the under the policy. Witness sent the document, marked exhibit D, to Mrs. Johnson for perusal," and when it was returned Shakes 'saiX that Mrs. Johnson had told him-that either she had not signed the document or she did not remember signing it. . * MBS. JOHNSON COMPLAINS. Witness said that the first time ho saw Mrs. Johnson personally after the accident was early in February, 1931. Mrs. Johnson came in to sea him abont fire insurance business. She also told him about the accident, but did not say anything about insurance moneys. On Mrs. Johnson's next visit to the office on 27th February the accident was not discussed. Witness next saw Mrs. Johnson in March, and/Mrs. Johnson mentioned the accident of- th« previous May. Mrs. Johnson said she had not received the insurance moneys, and she was sorry she would have to claim them. Since ( that time there had been no correspondence between the company and Mrs. Johnson, although, officers of the .company had beelf "-in communication with heat Witness-did not take Mrs. Johnson's statement that she would have to claim on the company, seriously. In reply to counsel for the plaintiff, ' witness said that he-now remembered that when a claim'was made "m respect of a motor-car some ,time after the in-' juries to Mrs. Johnson the company at the time said it would not pay out without Mrs. Johnson's written authority. plaintiff nr box again. Mrs. Johnson was recalled by ncr counsel in connection with certain aspects of the evidence given by, Mrs. Brown as to her having visited- Mrs.\ Johnson in the Bowen Street Hospital. v — Mrs. Jchnson said she could only recollect Mrs. Brown calling to see her twice, not three times as stated by Mrs. Brown. It was when she visited Mrs. Brown after coming-out of hospital that she said her husband had- ' forged her name. The only documents she signed were those when she was in. hospital at Levin. V Eeplying to counsel for the T. and G. Society, witness said i she adhered.' t» her statement that the only document's she signed in 'hospital were two" cheques and an. insurance claim form, while she was at-Levin. She also made quite sure that' she signed no documents at Levin that would enable her. husband to collect the 'insurance moneys. Mrs. Johnson added that her - suggestion was that Mrs. Brown; had made a mistake as to the place witnesg told Mrs. Brown she had signed documents. 1 CAUSE OP INJURIES. " Counsel for the Commercial Union: "What do you say the hospital matron^ Miss Davis,.saw you Bign?"—"Miss Davis saw me sign nothing.*' "Do yon still swear that your husband held you under that train!" "I do."

"That he dragged you from the car!"—"l don't know how I got from the car. I fainted- in the back seat. . . .•»

'Ton swear your injury was.caused through your husband holding yon in, front of tho train!"—"He was holding the lower part of my body on tho line My leg was crushed by t£s train."

•This concluded the evidence, -and after hearing an address by counsel for the plaintiff's husband (to which te* ference is made in another page) th» Court adjourned until to-day. ."■ ■•