INSURANCE CLAIM

Southland Times, Issue 21728, 14 June 1932, Page 5

INSURANCE CLAIM

THE JOHNSON CASE NON-SUIT MOTION r DISMISSED HUSBAND’S EVIDENCE (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, June 13, The motion for a non-suit moved in the Supreme Court last week by counsel for the defence at the conclusion of the evidence for Mrs Elizabeth Ivy Johnson against the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Assurance Company was dismissed by Mr Justice Reed in his reserved judgment delivered to-day and a start was made with the evidence for the defence. Referring to Mrs Johnson’s allegations that her husband deliberately placed her leg under the wheels of the train, his Honour said it was improbable that the husband dragged her round as his actions would have been visible to the engine driver. It was more probable the cause of the injury was a wild jump from the car and this was supported by the disinterested evidence of the engine-driver and guard.

Opening the case for the defence, counsel for Mrs Johnson’s husband said it was a matter of great satisfaction to the third party, Johnson, to know he would have the opportunity of meeting the charges made against him. The husband, John Randolph Johnson, in his evidence, said he was a builder and had lived in Wellington all his life. He married plaintiff in 1914. From time to time he had given his wife various properties, about five altogether. His wife was of a jealous nature and since an accident several years ago in which her skull was fractured she had been difficult to handle and very neurotic. The allegation made by his wife that she had heard him making strange noises in the house was an absolute fabrication. He also refuted his wife’s allegation that he had been keeping company with another woman.

Referring to the night of the accident witness said that when approaching the Ohau railway crossing at a speed of about 30 miles an hour, he saw the reflection of a light on both rails. At the same instant Mrs Johnson called out, “Train, John.” He applied the brakes and at the same time the wheel was wrenched out of his hand, presumably by Mrs Johnson, who had a habit of doing that. The car swung round and dashed into the cattle stops on the crossing. He threw the car into reverse and gave it the full power, but it would not move. He said, “Jump for it, Ive.” Witness jumped out and fell into the cattle stops. On turning round he saw Mrs Johnson getting out on her side of the car. Witness put up his hands and at that instant the train hit the car. The train had almost slowed down. When he next saw his wife she was lying across the cattle stops. He asked her if she was hurt and she said, “My leg, John.” The train driver, Jamieson, was also there and, with his assistance, he removed Mrs Johnson from the stops and placed her in the car which had been pulled round in front of the engine. Witness said he did not hear his wife say “Why didn’t you let me out?.” or suggest anything to that effect. He visited his wife three times a week in Levin and she made no suggestion to him that he had tried to murder her. Money was needed to pay accounts in respect of his wife’s properties and as a result of a discussion they had, his wife said some insurance, moneys would be coming in and he could fix up the accounts with that. Witness advised the T. and G. Society and the Commercial Union Office of the accident. He received a claim form from the Commercial Union and his recollection was that he filled it and signed it on Mrs Johnson’s behalf. A receipt for £250 10/- was signed by Mrs Johnson at Levin. He denied the signature was a forgery. Witness' obtained the money and at Mrs Johnson’s suggestion paid it into his own banking account and drew upon the money for payment of interest on the properties. The T. and G. claim form was signed by Mrs Johnson and was posted from Levin. The signature on the two accident claim discharge forms on the T. and G. Society was also Mrs Johnson’s. The forms were signed in witness’s presence. The T. and G. receipt was signed by Mrs Johnson and also a form of policy discharged. At that time thp T. and G. Society had paid out £5OO under the policy. None of the payments were concealed from Mrs Johnson. Replying to his Honour, witness said the motleys were paid out on Mrs Johnson’s properties. Alterations were made to the properties. Replying to counsel for plaintiff, witness said their married life was never happy. He denied threatening his wife with a spade a little time before the accident. It was a fabrication to suggest it. Counsel: You know the crossing well?—Yes.

What caused you not to get oyer the crossing in the ordinary way? The wheel was pulled and the car swerved to the cattle stop. Had the wheel not been pulled, there would have been no danger in going over the crossing. Is it not a fact that when the car got to the cattle stop you had already got out of the car?—That is a fabrication. Witness added that his wife did not jumn over the front seat, neither did she faint in the back of the car. There was no time for fainting. When he lookcl down at Mrs Johnson’s leg it did not appear to have been injured. There was no bleeding. He took the shoe off her foot. Witness was then cross-examined at some length on the filling in and signing of the receipts. Counsel: I suggest that the same person who filled in the word "Wellington” on that receipt also wrote the word “Johnson.” Witness: It is a lie, an absolute lie. Kathleen Davis, matron of the Bowen Street Hospital at the time Mrs Johnson was operated on there, gave evidence of seeing Mrs Johnson sign a document in the presence of her husband and another man. She was half raised in bed for the purpose. The matron did not know the nature of the document.

The hearing will be resumed tomorrow.