LEG UNDER TRAIN?

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 245, 7 June 1932, Page 5

LEG UNDER TRAIN?

(Press. Assn.-

CASE CONTINUED

•doctor does not agree with plaintiff's story DEFENCE AMENDED

— By Telegraph — Copyright).

WELLINGTON, Monday. The sensptional case in which Elizabeth May Johnson, of Ohau is claiming £760 from two insurance companies, and in which plaintiff alleged her husband deliberately caused her j leg to be cru^hed by a train, was con- | tinued yesterday in the Wellington Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Reed. The plaintiff claims £260 from the Commercial Union Assurance Company and' £500 from the Australian Tempefance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, in respect to accident policies taken out with these companies. The insurance, companies state that they have paid out money to plaintiff's husband and held receipts allegedly signed by plaintiff. Plaintiff denies that she signed these receipts, and alleges that they are forgeries. Doctor's Opinion Dr. Hunter of Levin, deseribed the injuries received which necessitated the leg being amputated. Mrs Johnson spoke to him while coming out of the anaesthetic and subsequently deseribed the accident to him. She was in hospital about six weeks and he saw nothing to suggest she was in an abnormal mental condition. He filled in tbe insurance form on tbe first intima'tion he received as to the nature of tho accident. The certificate he gave was not in accordance with the information given him by Mrs Johnson. In cross-examination witness said : the claim form was signed by plain- j tiff some days after she had spoken j to him. To counsel for plaintiff, Dr. Hunter i said the hypotliesis that the injuries j were received while the woman was ! in the car or getting out of the car, i did not appeal to him. He did not j think the leg was run over by the ! wheel of the engine. Counsel: Then what is your view? : I think it was caught between the j cow catcher and the rail. Dr. Hunter said he noticed nothing to show that Mi's J ohnson was suffering from any defects of an ac- ; cident in 1923. Befejice Amendedl Following a brief aldjournment, ! counsel for each of the Insurance ' companies asked leave to amend the ; defence on the grounds that the eom- : pany was not liable on the evidence | of the plaintiff. Counsel for the Commercial Union Company said if it was true that plaintiff's husband had deliberately dragged her from the car and held her under the train, then this was not an accident sustained as direct connection with any motor vehicle as provided in the policy. Counsel for the T. and G. contended that plaintiff had failed to supply the correct information of the accident as required under the policy. The injuries were the result of something her husband did and • not tlie result of an accident. Leave to amend the defence was granted each company. Carrol G'Donnell, solicitor, said ! that he went to see Mrs Johnson in j Bowen Street hospital for the pur- ; pose of drawing up a wilT'He after- 1 wards ascertained that the insurance ' son denied that she had authorised money had been paid out. Mrs Jobnher husband to collect the money. The hearing was adjourned until ' to-morrow morning. ,