THE JOHNSON CASE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 154, 15 June 1932, Page 10

THE JOHNSON CASE

WIFE'S INJURY BY TRAIN. DENIAL OF CHARGES. Wellington, June 14. The case in which Mrs Johnson is claiming from insurance companies was continued this afternoon. Edwin Leonard Goodwin, called on behalf of the T. aud G. Society, gave evidence of witnessing Mrs Johnson in hospital sign a document produced in Court. She did so on a table beside the bed. Mr Johnson took possession of it after it was signed. Asked what Mrs Johnson’s condition was, witness said: "You could hardly expect her to be fit considering she had had a leg off, but otherwise she was all right.” Witness denied that he had had many conversations with Mr Johnson since the case began. Witness was cross-examined as to whether he did not know that Johnson’s financial position was precarious at that time. To a question whether Johnson, about a fortnight before, was not in arrears in payment of wages for some two or three weeks, witness said he did not know. Counsel: But you were the bookkeeper. Witness said he could not remember. He was being asked to remember something which took place two years ago. Counsel; But, you see, you can remember everything so nicely when counsel for the T. and G. asks you; but when it comes to questions about your own wages you can’t remember. Will you deny that in June, 1930 while Mrs Johnson was in hospital, the wages of the men were in arrear for two or three weeks? Witness: No, 1 won’t deny it. CONVERSATION IN HOSPITAL. In evidence for the defence Edwin Leonard Goodwin, in the employ of Johnson, admitted that there was a conversation m the room at the Bowen Street Hospital at the time the document was signed. He could not recollect what the conversation was about, but ho knew that there was not enough money in the bank to pay wages until £5OO was paid in. Claud Hamilton Hudson, manager of the T. and G. Company, gave evidence as to the issue of cheques and the obtaining of receipts. The money was paid to her husband. In three letters written by the company there was nothing to suggest that they had informed Mrs Johnson that they were paying out to her husband. The letters were addressed to Johnson.

For the Commercial Union Company counsel called Herbert Phillip Mourant, a public accountant and hand-writing expert, who said that in his opinion the signature on the receipt for the money from the Commercial Union was in the handwriting of Mrs Johnson. His opinion was the same in respect of three or four other documents which he was asked to examine. Counsel for Mrs Johnson cross-exam-ined witness at some length for the purpose of showing that the differences between the admitted signatures of Mrs Johnson aud those in question showed that the latter were forgeries. The hearing was adjourned until Thursday morning.