CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 8 June 1932, Page 8

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

OHAU CROSSING CASE.. EVIDENCE OF TRAIN CREWThe train crew’s ■version of the happenings at Ohau railway crossing, whqre a woman’s left leg was crushed by the engine, according to her, because her husband held her on the line, figured in yesterday’s proceedings in the Supreme Court, at Wellington, where Mrs Elizabeth Ivy Johnson is seeking to recover £760 said to be due under insurance policies. A handwriting expert doubted the validity of signatures on (receipts received hy the insurance companies. Counsel for the companies applied for a non-suit on several grounds. Witnesses from the Railway Department were called when the hearing was 11 resumed yesterday morning. The en-gine-driver of the train is not now Jiving, but bis report on what happened at the crossing, made the following, day, was produced by Walter Schieraing, district traffic engineer. The report was read and said that the driver noticed the car approaching the crossing. lie blew the whistle three times and applied the brakes. The car turned on to the crossing and the train, came to u standstill close to it, near the cattle stop. The lights of the car were facing the engine. The driversa w Airs John son, lying in front of theca r with a crushed log. Only the cowcatcher of the engine was damaged,, and it only slightly. In cross-examination, the district traffic engineer said that he was not aware that there had been several accidents at this crossing. The dopartment considered it a dangerous one,, and there was a compulsory stop notice on either side of the line. GUARD’B EVIDENCE.

The guard of -the train, John Doig,. said lie heard the whistle of the enr gine 1) 1 owi; and the emergency brakes applied. He left the train 'while it was slowing down and went to the front., As he reached the crossing lie saw a ■man come round the front of the car holding up his hands to stop. Witness then saw a -woman lying near theengine, her feet about 18 inches from. the driving wheel. Part of one foot had (been, cut off and smashed and was lying between the rails. He heard her say two or three times, “Why didn’t you let me get out?’’ She then said, “Never again, never again,” and the last remark he heard from her was, “Get me out of this. I am bleeding to death.” Witness could not say that he heard any replies to what she said. He knew the crossing well and the visibility was good. The lights of the train could be seen about a mile away.

Replying to questions, Guard Doig said the car was over the line and wasffacing the cattle stop. “signatures EXAMINED.

Counsel for plaintiff was calling evidence as to business transactions of plaintiff’s husband, when. His Honour remarked, “We are losing sight of the only question involved, in this case, whether the documents are forgeries.”' A police witness claimed privilege when asked to produce the file relating to the detectives’ enquiries into thecase.

Evidence as to the signatm-es on certain papers was given by Francis Gordon Fendall, signature expert at the r B» Am Branch, of the Bank of New Zealand. 'He had been in the service of ithe bank for 25 years. He was shown by counsel certain insurance documents, receipts and cheques, and said. that in his opinion the signatures on them were not those of Mrs Johnson-

The signatures were also compared by his Honour with the use of a magnifying glass. “If you were giving evidence m a. criminal case you would not- swear that these were forgeries?” asked counsel, for the 'Commercial Union. Witness replied “No,” and agreed, that some of the differences might be accounted for by the position in which the signature was written, or toy the • health of the person who signed it. To counsel for the plaintiff Mr Fendall said that three of the signatures were careful attempts to copy Mrs Johnson’s signature. They would not -pass the bank if they were on a cheque. NONSUIT APPLIED FOE. The plaintiff’s ease (being concluded, counsel for the Commercial Union Company moved for a nonsuit on the grounds: — . (1) That there was no liability under the policy, (a) because the occurrence was not an accident, and v / if the occurrence was from the point of view of the plaintiff an U was not an accident in respect of which cover was granted by the policy (°) That it would be unsafe tor tne court to accept the evidence of the plaintiff ,so as to allow the case to der the policy, and even ifforgeryivas proved, it was still submitted that the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed, as she had by her actions and her eourse of dealings over a number cf years with the defendant company, impliedly authorised them to make payment to the husband. • , , (4) That plaintiff was estopped by her own conduct in suoee(»Ung against the company, as when she discovered that Johnson had the money, and when she discovered the forgery she should, have taken immediate steps to recover from the insurance company so that none of their rights should be prejudiced by delay. (5) That plaintiff had failed to comply with a condition of the policy to take steps within a certain time. 'Counsel for the T. and G. Society also asked for a nonsuit. The hearing will be resumed this morning.