JOHNSON CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 18 June 1932, Page 7

JOHNSON CASE

EVIDENCE COMPLETED PLAINTIFF RECALLED Evidence was completed in the Supreme Court at Wellington on Thursday in Hie l case in which Mrs Elizabotli Ivy Johnson is claiming £SOO from the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., and £260 from Hie Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., reports the “Post”. After one of the several counsel engaged in the case had addressed the Court, the adjournment was taken until yesterday.

Cecil William John Miller, Wellington branch manager of the Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd , said that Mr Johnson (plaintiff’s husband)) hud been dealing with his company for over twenty years He had known Mr Johnson personally since their schooldays. Business relations between the company and Johnson had always been satisfactory. In tho- past there had been claims under insurance policies held by Mrs Johnson Johnson did practically all the business in connection with llioso claims, and with only one exception witness could recollect, payments by the company had been made lo Johnson in each case

Mr Justice Reed: “When did you first know that tho T. and G. was also concerned in this?”—“Not until after we paid out. It would he about February, 1931. My first recollection of it is that two officials from the T. and G. came round to see me about it.”

Continuing, witness said that Johnson came to him and asked whether it would be possible to lift insurance’ moneys, because tho Levin Hospital had asked him to make a payment. Wit- i ness told Johnson he could have the money provided he secured Mrs Johnson’s signature. Subsequently Johnson presented tlic required form, signed and completed. After having compared tho signature with Mrs Johnson’s signature on the ’ proposal form, according to tho usual practice, he made a payment to Johnson. The next he heard about the matter was towards the end of 1930, when Mr Shakes, an officer of’the company, told him that Mrs Johnson had said that she had not received the benefit under the policy. Witness sent Hie document, marked exhibit D, to Mrs Johnson for perusal, and when it was returned Shakes said that Mrs Johnson had told him that either she had not signed the document or she did not remember signing

Witness said that the first time he saw Mrs Johnson personally after the accident was early in February, 1931. Mrs Johnson came in to see him about fire insurance business. She also told him about tho accident but did •‘“W anything about insurance moneys. On Mrs Johnson’s next visit to the office on 27th February the - accident was not discussed. Witness next saw Mrs Johnson in March, and Mrs Johnson mentioned the accident of the previous May. Mrs Johnson said she had not received Hie insurance moneys, and she was sorry she would have to claim them. Since that time there had been no correspondence between the company and Mrs Johnson, although officers of the company had been in communication with hoi* Witness did not take Mrs Johnsons statement that she would have to claim on the company seriously In reply to counsel for the plauitilt, witness said that he now l-eniemberea tliat when a claim was made in respect of a motor car some time) after the injuries to Mrs Johnson the company at the time said it would not pay out- without Mrs Johnson's written authority. Mrs Johnson .vas recalled by her counsel in connection with certain aspects of the evidence . given by Mrs Brown, W lo her, having visited Mrs Johnson in tho Bowen Street Hospital. (Mrs Johnson said she could only recollect Mrs Brown calling to see her twice, hot three times as stated by-Mrs-Brown. It was- when she visited Mrs Brown after- coming out of hospital that she said her husband had forged her name. The only documents she signed were those when she was :n hospital at to counsel for the T. and G. Societ-v, witness said she adhered to her statement that the only documents she signed in hospital were two cheques and an insurance claim form while she was at Levin. She also made quite sure that she signed no documents at Levin that would enable her husband to collect the insurance moneys. Mrs Johnson added that her suggestion was that Mrs Brown had made a mistake as to the pi aco witness told Mrs Brown she lid signed documents. Counsel for the Commercial Union: “What do you sav the hospital, matron, Miss Davis, saw you sign?’—‘Miss Davis saw me sign nothing. “Bo you still swear that you , husband held you under that train. 1 C °‘‘That ho dragged you from the car?” -•“I don’t know how I got from, the car. I fainted in the hack seat. ...” .“You swear your injury was caused through vour husband holding you m front of'the train?”—“He was holding the lower part of my body on the line. . . My leg was crushed by tho train.” * ' This concluded the evidence. DECISION RESERVED (By Telegraph—PresH Association) , WELLINGTON, This Day. After having lasted for eight- full days, the hearing of the case was concluded, decision being reserved.