HUSBAND’S DEFENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 14 June 1932, Page 5

HUSBAND’S DEFENCE

JOHNSON CASE WIFE BLAMED FOR ACCIDENT. % (By Teleyraph—Per Frets AtiuCiatioU) WELLINGTON, Juno 13. The motions for a. non-suit tha,t. were moved in tlie Supreme Court last week by counsel for the defence ’ at the conclus.on of the evidence for Mrs Elizabeth Ivy Johnson, in hor claim against the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Assurance Company, were dismissed by Mr Justice Rued, in his reserved judgment, delivered to-day, and a .start was made with the eviueuee for the defence.

Referring to Min Johnson’s allegation that her husband had deliberately placed her leg under the wheels of a train, Hb Honour said that it was improbable that tl.ie husband dragged her round, as his actions would have been visible to the engine driver. The more probable cause of the injury was a wild jump from the car, and this was supported by the disinterested evidence of the engine driver and the guard. In opening the case for the defence, counsel for Mrs Johnson’s husband said that it was a. matter of great sat* isfaction to the third party, to know that he would have an oppor* tunity of meeting the charge* made against him, The husband, John Randolph John* eoq, in evidence, said that he was a,'biiilcler, He had lived in Wellington all his life, He married the plaintiff in 1914. From time to time he had given lib 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 had been very neurotic. The allegation, made by hb wife that she had heard him making strange noises in the hours© was an absolute fabrication. He also refuted his vvife’s allegation that he had been keeping company with another woman. Referring to the night of the accident, witness said that, when approaching th e 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 tli 6 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 it dashed into the cattle etops on the crossing. He threw the car into reverse, and gave it full power, but it would not move. He said, ‘,‘Jump for it, Ive!” Witness jumped out, and he fell into the cattle stops. On turning round, he saw Mrs Johnson getting out on her side of the ear. put up his hands, and, at that instant, the train hit the car. The train had almost slowed, down. When lie next saw hb wife, she was lying across the onttle stops. He asked if she were hurt, and she said, “My leg, John!”. Th e train driver, Jameson, was also there, and with his assistance, he- removed Mr Johnson from the stops, and placed her in the car, which had pulled .round in front of the engine. Witness said he did not hear his wife say: “Why didn’t .Von let me out?” or suggest anything to that effect. He visited his wife three times a week at Levin, and she made no suggestion to him that he had tried to murder her.

Witness said that money was needed to pay accounts in respect of his wife’s properties, and, as the result of a discussion they had, his wife said some insurance money would be coming in, and he could fix up the accounts with that. Witness .notified the T. and G. Society and‘'the Commercial Union of the accident. He received a claim from the Commercial Union and his recollection was that he filled it in and signed it on Mrs Johnson’s be- j half. The receipt for £260 10s was 'signed by Mrs Johnson at Levin. He denied that this signature was a forgery. Witness obtained the money, and at Mrs Johnson’s suggestion, he paid it into his own banking account, and lie drew upon the money for the payment of interest, etc., on properties. The T. and G. claim form was signed by Mrs Johnson, and was posted from Levin. The signature on the T. and G. Society was also Mrs Johnson’s. I The forms were signed in witness’ ] presence. Similarly the T. and G. receipt was signed by Mrs Johnson, | and also a form of policy discharge. At that time the T. and G. Society ( had paid out £SOO-under the policy.. None of the payments was concealed from Mrs Johnson. | Replying to His Honour, witness said the moneys were paid out on Mrs Johnson’s> properties. Alterations were made to the properties. Replying to counsel for the plaintiff, witness said thnj£ their married life had never hcfij j* happy. He denied threatening hiei wife with ft spade a little time before the accident. It was a fabrication to suggest it. Counsel: You know the Ohau crossing well? Witness: Yes. Counsel: What caused you not to got over the crossing in the ordinary way ? Witness: The wheel was pulled, and the ear swerved into the cattle stop. Had the wheel not been pulled there would have been no danger in going over the crossing. Counsel: Is it not a fact that when the car got to the cattle stop, you had already sot out of the car? Witness: That is a fabrication. Witness added that his wif* did not