FORGED RECEIPTS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 63, 16 March 1933, Page 13

FORGED RECEIPTS

■INSURANCE MONEYS

APPEALS BY COMPANIES

After a hearing lasting over three days, the Court of Appeal today reserved its decision on the appeals of the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Co., Ltd., and the Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., in the case raising the question Of whether Mrs. Elizabeth Ivy Johnson is entitled to recover from them under insurance policies. Mrs. Johnson was injured in an accident at the Ohau railway crossing in May, 1930, and on receipts purporting to bo signed by Mrs. Johnson, tho two companies paid out to. her husband. Later Mrs. Johnson alleged the yeceipts were forgeries and that her husband had no authority to collect the moneys. Sho brought actions against the companies in the Supremo Court last year, and Mr. Justice Reed, notwithstanding that, the companies had paid out on the policies, held that Mrs. Johnson was entitled to recover from them.

On the facts, the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) intimated yesterday that the Court of Appeal saw no reason for disturbing Mr. Justice Reed's finding that the contested documents in the case were forgeries. The main legal defence raised by counsel for the companies in support of their contention that Mrs. Johnson was not entitled to succeed was that of estoppel by silence. In other wprds, the companies claimed that immediately Mrs. Johnson discovered that the insurance /moneys <lue to her had been paid, out without her authority she should have communicated .that fact to the "insurance companies. It was claimed that not to do so was a broach of a.-legal duty owing by her to the companies, and, further, it was contended the companies had been damnified by her not doing so. In his judgment Mr. Justice Reed held that Mrs. Johnson was not estopped from alleging that tho receipts were forgeries.

Mr. A. B. Sievwright, on behalf of Mrs. Johnson, concluded his argument yesterday afternoon. Today leading counsel for tho insurance companies replied.

After discussing further the question of 'whether Mrs. Johnson by her silence was estopped from setting up, after the companies had paid out to her husband, that her Signature had been forged .Mr. Sievwright contended that both on tho facts and on the law it.was absurd to submit that estoppel arose in the case.

PROVISIONS OF- POLICIES,

Mr. Sievwright next dealt 'with the allegations that, contrary to provisions in the two policies, false statements were made in the claim forms received in respect of the accident by the two companies. The Commercial Union complained that full particulars of the accident had not been given. Thers was, however, another proviso in the policy setting out that any further particulars were to be supplied as required by the company. . The- company had not sought furtiior particulars. Mr. Sievwright submitted .that in each caso the limitation conditions of the policies had been waived. In his submission thfl judgment of the lower Court should lie upheld.

Argument on several points (referred to by Mr. Sievwright was elaborated by Mr. Heine. :

' The appeals were heard by the Chiof Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice MaeGregor, Mr. Justice Ostler, and Mr. Justice Smith.

Mr. E. P-. Bunny and Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the T. and-G. Society; Mr. E. Parry, with.Mr. B. I». A. Crcsswcll, for the Commercial Union Co., and Mr.- A. B. Sievwright, with him Mr. W. H. Heine, for Mrs. Johnson, the respondent.