WIFE’S CHARGE

Hokitika Guardian, 7 June 1932, Page 5

WIFE’S CHARGE

AGAINST HUSBAND

CLAIM FOR INSURANCE

(By Telegraph—Per Press A ssociation j

WELLINGTON, June 6

The case in which Mrs Elizabeth Ivy Johnson is claiming sums of money from insurance companies in respect of accident policies, the opening of which was telegraphed last Thursday, was continued at the Supreme Court to-day. Replying to counsel for her husband, Mi's Johnson said that when her leg was crushed, her husband had her in liis arms. Her left leg was the one that was injured, although her two logs were on the line.

Couneel: You reckon he had murder in his heart at the time? Witness: I do.

Witness said that ®h e had fainted in the car on seeing the train coniing down the track. Her first recollection after that was that she was oil the rails,

Counsel: Can you suggest why, if you# husband had tnurder in his heart he didn’t pttt you right across the rails, and have your head cut off.? •

Witness: Because there would hare been a big inquiry into It, and ho thought' that If it was only my legs, he could easily bluff them. Witness denied that when the car got near the railway line, her husband said ‘‘Jump for it!” Her husband disappeared out of the car. Counsel: This is what might be called slow motion murder? Witness: It appears to be. Mrs Johnson said that no claim had, at any time, been made- against her husband for insurance money. The reason for that was that she held the insurance companies liable. Mrs Johnson said that she had heard her husband making “a half insane sound,” a sound really beyond description. Re-examined by counsel, Mrs Johnson said that the car was not damaged in any way.

Counsel for the husband: The springs were broken. repair them.. Witness: The springs were broken beforehand. ' In fact, .there is a leaf broken now. *

Witness said that she was conscious just before the injury to her leg and from that time until her admission to Levin Hospital. Counsel: When did Johnson first make any suggestion to. you that you were a lunatic, or something of that •sort ? Witness said the. first time was when she accused her husband of going with another woman. That wa« jfist before Christmas in 1929, and four years *nfter the accident in Wellington to which counsel on the other aide had rc> ferred. '

MEDICAL EVIDENCE HEARD.

CONDITION QUITE NORMAL.

WELLINGTON, June 6. In Mrs Johnson’s case, Dr. L., J. Htatei;, of!.Levin .described, the nature of injuries she received, which necessitated her leg being amputated. Mrs Johnson spoke of him while coming out of the anaesthetic, and she subsequently discussed the accident with him. She was in the hospital for about six weeks, and he saw nothing to suggest that she was in an abnormal medical or mental condition. He filled in the insurance form on the first information that he had received as to the nature of the accident. He agreed that the certificate that he ■gave was not in accord with the information given by him by Mrs Johnson and which she asked him to regard as confidential. In cross examination, witness said the claim form was .signed by plaintiff some days after she had spoken to him.

To counsel for the husband, Dr. Hunter said the hypothesis that the injuries were received while the woman was in, or getting out of a car did not appeal to him. He did not think the leg was run over by the wheel of the engino. Counsel: “Then what is your view?”

Witness: “I think that it was caught between the cow catcher and the rail.”

Dr- I). McDonald Wilson said that he had noticed nothing to show that Mrs Johnson was suffering from any effects of her accident in, 1923.

INSURANCE COMPANIES’ STAND

ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING

, Following a brief adjournment, counsel for the Insurance Companies asked leave to amend the defence, on the grounds that the Company was not liable, on the evidence of the plaintiff.

Counsel for the Commercial Union Company said that, if it were true that the husband had deliberately dragged her from the car and held her under the train, then this was not an accident sustained in direct connection with any motor vehicle, as provided in tile policy. Counsel for the T. and G. Company contended that the plaintiff had failed to supply correct particulars of the accident, and that the injuries were the result of something that the husband did, and not the ordinary result of a collision. Leave to amend the defence was granted each Company. Carol Bernard O’Donnell, solicitor,

said tlmt he went to see Mrs Johnson in the Bowen Street Hospital for the purpose of drawing up her will. He afterwards ascertained that the insurance money had l>cen paid out. Mrs Johnson had denied that she had,authorised her husband to collect the money. * , - Tlie hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.