FORGERIES’

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 142, 18 June 1932, Page 8

FORGERIES’

WOMAN’S SIGNATURE ( JUDGE GIVES HIS VIEW MRS. JOHNSON’S CLAIMS W ELLINGTON, June 17. Late yesterday afternoon, in the Supreme Court when the final stages of the Johnson case were entered upon, Air. Justice Reed intimated to counsel that his view was that Airs. Johnson s signature had been forged on the insurance documents, exhibits in the case, and without making a charge against anyone, His Honour added that in his opinion the forgeries were the work of two persons. It is on allegations of forgery against her husband, John Randolph Johnson, that Airs. Elizabeth Ivy Johnson bases her claims for £5OO and £260 respectively, said to be due under accident policies, from the Australasian Temperance and General Alutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., and the Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. The final portion of the evidence was completed yesterday afternoon. A start was then made with counsel’s address on the facts and on the law, and these were continued to-day. His Honour pointed out that the onus was very strongly upon the plaintiff to prove forgery. In regard 1o the course he proposed following ui connection with the handwriting experts’ evidence, His Honour quoted from observations on the subject by Lord Justice Scruttoa. Counsel for the plaintiff’s husband addressed the Court first. In reply to a question by counsel, His Honour said his view was that Airs. Johnson’s allegations as to how she came by her injuries had nothing to do with the present case. Value of Evidence ”Except, I submit, for the purpose of helping to weigh the value of the plaintiff’s evidence,” suggested counsel, who described the plaintiff’s story as being “fantastic from beginningto end.” Counsel also contended that if the plaintiff had any claim she had shown wanton delay in bringing it, which embarrassed the defence and hampered the evidence. • His Honour said his view was that Mrs. Johnson’ signature had been forged. At a later stage he added: “Without making any charge I might say the forgeries in my opinion were done by two persons.” Counsel for Johnson argued that it would be dangerous to form a definite conclusion on the point on the handwriting evidence alone. When counsel had concluded his address the Court adjourned until today.

When the Court resumed to-day counsel for the Commercial Union begai his address. Replying to a question from counsel, His Honour said that in coming to the conclusion that Airs. Johnsons’ signature had been forged, in addition to comparing the writing on the questioned documents with the authentic writing of Mrs. Johnson, he had taken other matters 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 be signed. He had studied the documents again since the Court rose yesterday afternoon, and he was still more firmly of the opinion that the documents were forgeries. Counsel suggested that if the documents had not been perused until after the close of the evidence, the position might have been different in His Honour’s mind. ‘‘ Ob vious Forgeries. ’ ’ His Honour: rr f cannot conceive of anyone looking at those documents and comparing them without seeing that the signatures obviously were forged. Frankly, I would very much like to come to the other conclusion, because one naturally sympathises with the insurance companies when they have paid out, but the view that the documents are forgeries is absolutely forced upon me.” With regard to the whole of the circumstances of the case, counsel said that although he made no suggestion that Airs. Johnson had perjured herself in the witness box, it. was submited that she must have impressed the Court as being unreliable in her evidence. Counsel then dealt with the question of whether in view of the delay th a* had occurred in bringing the action Afrs. Johnson was not stopped from recovering from the insurance companies. He quoted a number of cases in support of hig submissions. Counsel Hopeful. Counsel for the T. and G. Society said that notwithstanding His Honour’s expressions on the question of the facts, 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 T. and G. 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 after it might be a forgery His Honour: “I think you are quite right, but the fact that «. whole lot of other documents are forgeries certainly would assist in a consideration of whether this document is a forgery.” Counsel submitted that the signature on the receipt had been proved, or at least, had been left in such a position that the Court could not say it was a forgery. He relied very strongly on the evidence of Matron Davis as being strong corroboration of the fact that a document was signed by Mrs. Johnson in Bowen Street Hospital shortly . after her operation, and the T. and G. I document was dated tho day after the operation. The evidence of Airs. Brown was also of very great importance. It was submitted that it was clear Mrs. Brown visited the hospital within a few days of Mrs. Johnson’s operation. Apart from the facts, connsei also dealt with the question of estoppel. It was submitted that as soon as Mrs Johnson ftfund that the moneys had been obtained from the insurance com panics without her authority it was her duty to inform the insurance companies. The companies, it was claimed, had suffered an appreciable detriment in not knowing of Mrs. Johnson’s allegation prior to the settlement effected between Johnson and his wife. Counsel’s Argument Addressing the Court, counsel for plaintiff said that when the claim was paid bv the Temperance General A>

surance Society, the relationship between Mr and Mrs Johnson was very strained. Later Johnson feigned a renewal of affection and commenced to bleed her banking account. As His Honour had remarked, it was quite clear that two persons had been concerned in tho forgeries, and counsel submitted that they were Johnson and Goodwin. It was clear that Johnson had cleverly worked out a scheme to get his wife’s money. If the insurance company had carried out its instructions from Melbourne it would never have paid out on a forged document. The only defence the insurance companies had was that they had made the payment. When Airs Johnson wont and told the insurance companies about the forgeries the companies insisted that the documents upon which they had paid out were genuine. They were cuntent to accept the assurance of Johnson and his solicitor to this effect. No estopal, he submitted, could arise iu the case of fraud. It was absurd for the defendant companies, after standing by for two years, to now say that Mrs Johnson should have gone Xo them before she knew of the forgeries. When she did tell them they did nut believe her. Airs Johnson could not be blamed for any delay which had taken place. When she came out of hospital she had been driven from pillar to post. It was not until she could get her artificial leg that she could get about and prosecute inquiries. Before paying out the moneys the insurance companies should have satisfied themselves that Johnson had his wife’s authority to collect them ou her behalf. His Honour: Was not the receipt sufficient ? Counsel: No, because the Commercial Union paid out by cheque direct to Johnson personally. His Honour: What is your action for? Counsel: For the insurance policies payable. His Honour: Aren’t we gettingperilously near the terma of tho covenant in the policy? Decision was reserved.