INSURANCE CLAIMS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 156, 17 June 1932, Page 5

INSURANCE CLAIMS

THE JOHNSON CASE COUNSEL ADDRESSES COURT. QUESTION OF ESTOPPEL. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, June 17. in the Johnson insurance case, when the Court resumed to-day, counsel for the Commercial Union Co. began his address. ncpiymg to a question by counsel His Honour said that in coming to the conclusion that Airs Johnson’s signature had been forged, in addition to comparing the writing on the questioned documents with authentic writing of Airs Johnson, he had taken other matters into considreation —the evidence relating to the witnessing oi the signature and that in regard to the dates on which the documents’* were said to bo signed. He had studied the documents again since the Court rose yesterday and was still more firmly of the opinion that the documents were forgeries.

His Honour said further that he could not conceive anyone looking at the documents and comparing them without seeing that the signatures obviously were forged. Frankly, he said, he would very much like to come to another conclusion because one naturally sympathised with insurance companies when they had paid out, but the view that the documents were forgeries was absolutely forced upon him.

While making no suggestion that Airs Johnson had perjured herself m the witness-box, counsel submitted that she must have impressed the Court as being unreliable in her evidence.

Counsel dealt with the question of whether, in view of the delay that had been incurred in bringing the action, Airs Johnson Swas not estopped from recovering from the insurance companies and quoted cases m support. Counsel for the T. and G. Society said he did not despair and was not without hope of being able to convince the Court that the signature to the document on which the 1. and G had paid out should be accepted as genuine. If the document on which the company paid out was not proved to be a forgery then the company must succeed even though every signature alter it might be a forgery. His Honour’: f think you are quite right; but the fact that the whole lot of the other documents are forgeries certainly would assist in consideration of whether or not this document is a forgery. Counsef went on to refer to the evidence, stressing that Airs Johnson certainly signed some document in the Bowen Street Hospital shortly after the operation and the T. and G. document was dated the day after the operation. Apart from the facts counsel also dealt with the question of estoppel.