INSURANCE CLAIM.

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18653, 3 June 1932, Page 8

INSURANCE CLAIM.

CHARGE AGAINST HUSBAND. SENSATIONAL ALLEGATIONS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. Two cases were continued in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Reed to-day, in which sensational allegations were made (by plaintiff that her husband held her on a train line and allowed the engine to crush her leg in order that he could collect the accident insurance. The plaintiff is Elizabeth Ivy Johnson, who claims £260 from the Commercial Union Assurance Company and £SOO from the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, in respect to accident policies taken out with these companies. Mrs Johnson’s evidence was continued after we went to press day.His Honour: Do you suggest that on this occasion your husband deliberately stopped the car on the line so that you might be killed or injured?—l do, sir. His Honour: And that he really held you in a position so that you would be killed or injured when the engine got there?—Yes. Proceeding, Mrs Johnson said that her husband went to the Levin Hospital with her in' the car. He kept on saying how much he loved her. At the hospital her husband cried like a baby, and asked her not to tell the police. He asked her to agree for the children’s sake. She was operated on that night, and the next day she told Dr. Hunter about ■the whole affair. She decided for the sake of the children to deceive her husband into thinking that she agreed with his proposal to say nothing. ’ Mrs Johnson denied signing any insurance receipt. She left the hospital on August 21, and on the second night she was at home she slipped on her crutches and her husband said, "Why don’t you stand on your legs?” She replied, "Because you took one off.” Her husband then had a most peculiar look on his face and she had to go into a bedroom where her mother and daughter were. She locked the door, but her husband hammered on it and threatened to cut all their throats. On August 26 she left home, and she had not returned. On September 29 she was legally separated from her husband. Mrs Johnson said she first knew the insurance money had been drawn ]ust bfore she left the hospital in August. She taxed her husband with the matter some time later, but he denied it. After further evidence the ease was adjourned until Monday.