SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 212, 7 August 1937, Page 10

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. Already having been heard in the Supreme Court once, when His Honour Mr Justice Ostler found there was no case to go before the jury, the Appeal Court subsequently holding there was a. case for the jury to consider, a claim caino before the Chief Justice, Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers, and a jury of 12 in the Supreme Court, yesterday, in which William Guntrip, ail insurance agent, sought in all £llO2 8s from Allied George Cawood, a taxi proprietor, of Palmerston North. Mr H. R. Cooper appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. M. Ongley for defendant. The finding of the jury was for defendant and judgment was entered accordingly. Plaintiff, in his statement of cla.im, alleged that on April 22, 1936, defendant, by his agent or servant, so negligently, carelessly and unskilfully drove and managed a car in Rangitikei Street that it collided with plaintiff, who was walking across the street. Plaintiff stated that ho had been very severely bruised and injured and had suffered pain and shock and a fractured skull. He was permanently restricted in In's bearing in the right ear and partly affected in his eyesight. He had been unable to follow liis usual occupation for 19 weeks and for four months had been able to perform only half his duties. A total of £lO2 8s was claimed as special damages and £IOOO general damages. Defendant denied all the particular allegations of negligence. It was pleaded that the collision was dup to plaintiff’6 action in his not keeping a proper look-out for traffic and that he placed himself in the track of the car. It was further alleged that plaintiff had contributed to the collision (if it was found that defendant was negligent in any respect). It was further pleaded that plaintiff had the last opportunity of avoiding the collision, and that it was an inevitable accident. The jury were empanelled as follow:—Messrs W. C. Nicliolls (foreman), ,T. R. Watson. L. C. Sadd, C. Proctor, G. Davey, E. Jones, J. Le Cheminant, G. Menendez, J. W. L. Red, G. P. Hurn, A. L. Jewett and J". H. Rush, junr. At the conclusion of the proceedings His Honour put three issues to the jury for their consideration. They were as follow: (1) Was defendant’s driver guilty of negligence-, and. if so, in -that respect or respects? (2) Was plaintiff guilty of negligence, and if so, in what respect or respects? (3) If both were guilty of negligence? Tho finding of the jury was that defendant’s driver had not been guilty of negligence. In that circumstance it was not necessary for them to answer the other issues. On the motion of Mr Ongley judgment was entered for defendant with costs. No costs were allowed in relation to the previous trial.