BLOW FROM A GOLF CLUB.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2762, 17 March 1910, Page 2

BLOW FROM A GOLF CLUB.

LADY CLAIMS £7.30 DAMAGES. A.u unusual case, fur the hearing of Which a- special jury of twelve had teen summoned, was brought Let.ro the Chief Justice, Sir Robert- Stout, in the Supreme Court- on Monday. I'he plain tilt's were Frank Maxwell Leekie, Civil Servant, of Wellington, and his wife, Irene Myra L’Estelle Leekie. The claim was for £7-30 damages from Dr. Ernest. Rawson of Wellington. THE BLOW. The statement of claim filed by plaintiff sot- out that on November 9 last, while _ Airs Leekie was walking along a pathway or track on the golf links at. Heretaunga, or upon a portion of the golf links, commonly used to approach the golf house on the links, Dr. Rawson,, negligently swung a golf club so adjacent to the pathway thathe struck and seriously injured Airs Cookie. Plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Rawson took no precautions to ascertain 'whether any person was in the neighborhood and 'unlawfully using the .’pathway.’’ ALrs Leekie alleged that the bone in her nose was broken, the fronta-l base of the skull fractured, and her olfactory nerve severed'—all this being occasioned by the blo-w. She had lost all sense of smell, her sense of taste was almost wholly destroyed, and part of the scalp had lost the power of sensation, besides which, she was partially disfigured in appearance, and had sustained severe nervous shock. .Air. Leekie alleged- that he had incurred expense for medical and surgical treatment, made necessary by the occurrence, nursing, and other attendance on his wife, and for -medicines, r,a the -amount of £B6 19s. 9d. He therefore, claimed judgment for that sum, and his wife claimed £7oo damages. CASE FOR DEFENDANT, In his statement for defence Dr. Rawson set out that- lie had swung his golf club in a manner customary among players of golf, and 'with a proper regard 10-r the safety of others. He denied that there was a pathway or track or right-of-way, as stated, or that there was any portion of the links upon which Al'rs Leekie had -a right- to- walk. No- portion of the links were commonly used to approach the golf house. He further denied that Airs Leekie sustained severe physical injuries, and added that any injury sustained by Airs Leekie was caused by “inevitable accident,’ ’inasmuch as it was not caused intentionally and eoullcl not have been avoided by reasonable care on. his part. In company with three other players-, he was about to commence- a game, and, after carefully ascertained that noone was near, lie swung his club, for th-c purpose of practice, exercising all due caw. While sr> engaged, Airs Leekie negligently approached, and attempted to: pass the green or tee upon, which he was practising and received the .blow. All's Leekie- alone was to bla-me for the injury sustained, and was guilty of contributory negligence, inasmuch -as: (1) She did not take reasonable care to avoid danger ; (2) she gave no sign -of her approach to- the defendant; (3) she should have asked the defendant and his companions for permission to cross the green or toe, or sholild haive waited until they had vacated -the teo before .ait-tempting to .pass behind them: and (4) she had no business to be _ where she- was, and should have avoided the -tee. [A Tress telegram states that the verdict went for defendant.]