JOHNSON CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 17 June 1932, Page 6

JOHNSON CASE

INSURANCE MONEY ALLEGED FORGED SIGNATURES Cross-examination of Herbert Phillip Mourant, public accountant, was continued by counsel for the plaintiff in the Supreme Court at Wellington yesterday when the hearing was resumed before Air Justice Reed of the ease in which Mrs Elizabeth Ivy Johnson alleges that her husband, John Randolph Johnson, forged her signature and obtained insurance moneys payable to her under accident policies from the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., and the Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., reports the “Post.” Mrs Johnson is claiming .Cf>oo from the T. and G. Society and ;C2(iO from the Commercial Union. Mr Mourant was called by counsel for the Commercial Union to give evidence as fo the validity of the signatures on the various insurance documents which are exhibits in the case. Before the Court adjourned oil Tuesday afternoon until to-day. Mr Mourant had expressed the view that the signature on the questioned documents was that of Airs Johnson herself. Counsel for the plaintifl asked witness if he had compared the alleged forgeries with specimens of the handwriting of Johnson and the witness Good win, who gave evidence for the defence on Tuesday. Witness replied that lie had lmd a brief opportunity of doing so that morning. In answer to another question, witness said his opinion was that the person who wrote “84 Ellice street” on exhibit G also wrote the signature. “And I take it, Air Mourant, that that answer would apply also to the ‘Bl Ellice street,’ on exhibit E?”— “No. Replying to his Honour, witness said he did'not find the. same curly top to the “E” shown on an exhibit produced in any of Airs Johnson’s mini itted signatures. .In answer to another question from counsel for the plaintiff, witness said that in the suspect documents lie thought the writing was more studied and to his mind it indicated that possibly the person responsible for the writing was not in the best of health. Bv studied he meant written with more care and more slowly; hut not studied for the purpose of forgery. “Provided these signatures aie authentic?”—“That is what I think.” Witness also added that in the course of his evidence on Tuesday lie said that it was likely more care would he taken in signing the documents because they represented money. Counsel for the Commercial Union said lie had only one further witness to call, hut since the adjournment on Tuesday counsel for Hie T. and G. Society hail been informed of a witness, who, it was believed, was able to give some : valuable evidence as to Mrs Johnson having signed documents. I His Honour said lie saw no objection to the witness being calk'd. Doris Mary Brown, wife of Winton Brown, solicitor, of Wellington said she knew Air Hudson, secretary of the T. and G. Society. Apparently in speaking to Mr Hudson recently she had

given him some information, although slie did not realise slie was doing so at the time, and had been brought to Court to give evidence on a subpoena. She also knew Mrs Johnson and visited her about three times while she was in Bowen street hospital. On one occasion Mrs Johnson expressed disappointment that her husband had not been in to see her. Witness stayed with Mrs Johnson a good time because she was really quite ill and witness was distressed about, her.

Counsel for the T. and G. Society: “Was there anything discussed ou that occasion about papers?” Mrs Brown said that in the course of conversation Mrs Johnson mentioned that she had signed papers. Witness thought they would he cheques. “Did she tell you anyone else was present?” —“It is railier haul to lecolicet, but T can remember her mentioning the matron of the hospital and John, her husband, as being present when she signed these papers.” “Did slie tell you. Airs Brown, what the papers were wanted for?" —“Well the reason for signing the papers was to get some money.” “From what she told you, did you understand she signed papers on only one occasion or more than one? —“I can recollect her saying she signed something at’Levin, but it is not absolutely clear.”

“But the reference to the matron was at Bowen street?” —“Acs.” Repdying to i-otitisM for the plantiff, Mrs Brown said she. remembered Mrs Johnson making the allegation to her sometime afterwards that John (Mr Johnson) had forged her name in connection with insurance moneys.

Witness said it was after Airs Johnson came out of hospital that slie alleged her husband hail forged her name. When Airs Johnson referred to having signed papers slie did not say what the papers were. Witness got a shook as a result of what Airs Johnson told her. EVIDENCE CONCLUDED (Bv Telegraph—Press Association) WELLINGTON, This Day. 'Pile hearing of evidence was eoneluded in the Johnson ease yesterday afternoon, and to-day counsel for the insurance companies and plaintill will address the Court. JUDGE’S CONCLUSION SIGNATURES FORGERIES When the Court ' resumed, counsel for I lie Commercial Union began his address. Replying to a question. by. counsel, .his Honour said that in coining to the conclusion that.-Mrs .Toluison’s signature had been forged, in addition to comparing the writing on the questioned documents with the authentic writing ol Airs Johnson he. had taken another mat. ter into consideration —the evidence relating to the witnessing of 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 opinion that the documents were forgeries. - His Honour said further that lie could not conceive anyone looking at the documents and comparing them without seeing that tile signatures obviously were forged. Frankly, he said, lie' would very much like to come to another conclusion, because one naturally sympathised with the insurance, companies when they had paid out, hut the view that the doom meats were forgeries was absolutely forced upon him. While making no suggestion that Mrs Johnston had perjured herself in the witness box, counsel submitted that slie must have impressed the Court as being unreliable in evidence.

Counsel dealt with the question of whether in view of the delay that had been incurred in bringing the action Airs Johnson was not slopped from recovering from the insurance companies, and quoted cases in support. Counsel for the T. and G. Society said ho did not despair and was not without hope of being able to convince the Court that the signature to the document on which the. T. and G. paid out should be accepted as genuine. If the document on which the company paid out wys not proved to he a forgery then I lie company minsf succeed, even though every signature after it might be a forgery. Jlis Honour: “I think you are quite right, but the fact that a whole, lot of other documents arc forgeries certainly Mould assist in the consideration of whether this document is a forgery.” Counsel went ou 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.