Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

JOHNSON CASE

(Press. Assn.-

STILL PROCEEDING WRONG SIGNATURE ON THE INSURANCE RECEIPTS BANK OFFICIAL'S OPINION

— By Telegraph — Copyright).

WELLINGTON, Tuesday. Further dvidence was. heard for plaintiff in the Supreme Court in the case in which Mrs Elizabeth Ivy Johnson claimed £500 from the Australian Temperanee and General Mu4 tuai Life Insurance Society and £260 from the Commercial Union Insurance Company. Plaintiff alleged that her husband, after having deliberately caused her leg to be crushed by the train at the Ohau Railway crossing, ohtai'ned by means of forgery, sums of money- under two accident insurance policies held hy her. ' . ; Walter Schierning, Railway District traffic manager, produced reports from the engine driver, James T. A; Jamieson, now deceased, describing how the train struck Johnson's car at the crossing, stating that the car appeared undamaged, hut the lady passenger "trying to climh out of the car" had ber.left leg badly crushed. Guard's Statement John Doig, a guard on the train, stated that after the accident he heard Mrs Johnson ask her husband why he did not let her out. Witness was unable to say whether Johnson made a reply. Evidence was also given hy Detective T, H, Ilall, who made inquiries into the alleged forgery aspect of the case. Francis Gordon Fendall, officer for the Te Aro branch of the Bank of New Zealand, gave evidence as to Mrs Johnson's signature held hy the bank. He said he had been shown certain insurance doeuments, receipts and cheques, and he was of the opinion that the signature- on them was not that of Mrs Johnson. At the conclnsion of plaintiff 's case, the- respective counsel for the Insurance Companies asked for nonsuits on the grounds, inter alia, that there was on liability, as the occurrence was not an accident provided for in the cover, that it would be unsafe to accept plaintiff's evidence, and that her husband was authorised to receive the moneys paid. The hearing was adjourned until to-morrow.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/RMPOST19320608.2.29

Bibliographic details

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 246, 8 June 1932, Page 5

Word Count
326

JOHNSON CASE Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 246, 8 June 1932, Page 5

JOHNSON CASE Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 246, 8 June 1932, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert