STRANGE CASE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 147, 7 June 1932, Page 8

STRANGE CASE

WIFE’S ALLEGATIONS ALLEGEDLY HELD ON RAILWAY LINE. CLAIM FOR INSURANCE. Wellington, June 6. The case in which Mrs Elizabeth Ivy Johnson is claiming sums of money from insurance companies in respect of accident policies was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. Replying to counsel for her husband, Mrs Johnson said that when her leg was crushed her husband had her in his arms. Her left leg was the one that was injured, although her two legs were on the lino. Counsel: You reckon he had murder in his heart at the time I Witness: I do. Witness said that she fainted in the car on seeing tho train coming down the track. Her first recollection after that was that she was on the rails.

Counsel: Can you suggest why, if your husband had murder in his heart, he didn’t put you right across the rails and have your head cut off?

Witness: Because there would have been a big inquiry into it, and he thought that if it was only my legs ho could easily bluff them. Witness denied that when the car got near the railway line her husband said: “Jump for it!” Her husband disappeared out of the car.

“SLOW MOTION MURDER.” Counsel: This is what might be called slow motion murder? Mrs Johnson said that no claim had at any time been made against her husband for the money. The reason for that was that she held the insurance companies liable. Mrs Johnson said that she had heard her husband making a “half insane sound ’ ’ —a sound really beyond description. Re-exaininod by counsel Mrs Johnson said that the car was not damaged in any way. Counsel for the husband: Tho springs were broken. It cost £lO to repair them. Witness: The springs were broken beforehand. In fact, there is a leaf broken now. Witness said that she was conscious just before the injury to her leg and from that time until her admission to the Levin Hospital. Counsel: When did Johnson first make any suggestion to you that you were a lunatic or something of that sort) Witness said that the first time was when she accused her husband of going with another woman. That was just before Christmas of 1929 and four years after the accident in Wellington to which counsel on the other side had referred. DOCTOR’S EVIDENCE. Dr L. J. Hunter, of Lovin, described tho nature of the injuries received which necessitated the leg being amputated. Mrs Johnson spoke to him while coming out of the anaesthetic and subsequently discussed the accident with him. She was in hospital for about six weeks and he saw nothing to suggest that she was in an abnormal mental condition.

He filled in the insurance form on the first information he received" as to the nature of the accident. He agreed that the certificate was not in accordance with tho information given to him by Mrs Johnson and which she asked him to regard as confidential. In cross-examination witness said that the claim form was signed by plaintiff sonic days after she had spoken to him. To counsel for the husband Dr Hunter said that the hypothesis that the injuries were received while the woman was in or getting out of the car did not appeal to him. He

did not think that tho leg was run over by the wheel of the engine. COMPANIES ALTER DEFENCE. Counsel: Then what is your view! Witness: I think it was caught between the cowcatcher and the rail. Dr D. McDonald Wilson said that he noticed nothing to show that Mrs Johnson was suffering from any effects of the accident in 11123.

Following a brief adjournment counsel for each of the insurance companies asked leave to amend the defence on the grounds that the company was not liable on the evidence of the plaintiff.

Counsel for the Commercial Union Company said that if it was true that the husband deliberately dragged her from the car and held her under the train, then this was not an accident sustained by direct connection with any motor vehicle, as provided in the policy. Counsel for the T. and G. Company contended that the plaintiff had failed to supply the correct particulars of the accident and injuries, as required under the policy. The injuries were the result of something her husband did and not the ordinary result of a collision.

Leave to amend the defence was granted to each company.

Carol Bernard 0 ’Donnell, a solicitor, said that he went to see Mrs Johnson in the Bowen Street Hospital for the purpose of drawing up a will. He afterwards ascertained that the insurance money had been paid out. Mrs Johnson denied that she had authorised her husband to collect the money.

The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow morning.