SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14978, 27 May 1914, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

COMPENSATION CASE.

In the Supreme Court . yesterday, hearing of tho compensation claim, Banks v. the King in respect of a railway accident at Rangiora was resumed before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston and a jury. Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr F. K. Hunt, appeared for suppliant, Frances E. Banks, and Mr A. F. Wright for the defendant.

Additional evidence for the defence was given by Wm. Stanley, porter, Rangiora; Homer Cobden Cocks, Rangiora- Wm. Gordon King, stationmaster, Rangiora; David Crichton, carter, Rangiora.

! Charles Waterlow Smith, enginedriver, said that he blew the whistle on theday in question some thrco or four chains off Burke street. This was the usual place, and ho kept the whistle going till tho semaphore was lowered. After the semaphore had dropped ho saw Mrs Humphreys on the crossing with the flag. The pace at tha crossing would be from 25 to 30 miles an hour. The crossing would be dangerous except for tho protection giren by the Department. In his estimation the crossing was hotter protected than any between Fendalton and Culverdon, becauso of a crossing-keeper being provided. Win. T. Leece, fireman, gavo confirmatory evidence. Mrs D. Dawson was recalled to detail a conversation she had with Mr Hands tho day after the accident.

Joseph S. Plendy, Albert Bendy and Harry L. C. Smith (recalled) also gavo evidence.

After counsel had addressed the jury, and his Honour had summed up, four issues were placed before tho jury, to which they returned tho following answers:—

(1) Has the plaintiff proved that the Department failed to properly flag the train? —Yes.

(2) If yes, was such failure the proximate cause of tho death of deceased?— Yes.

(3) If the Department was negligent, could the deceased have avoided the accident by reasonable care? —We are of the opinion that the deceased """as not guilty of any wilful negligence. (4) Is the plaintiff entitled to damages, and if yes. to what amount? And in what shares shonld such damatres be divided?— Yes, £1500, to be divided as follows:—One-third to the wifo and two-thirds to the children.

Mr Raymond moved for judgment and costs, which was entered up, with £15 los for second day, and £2* 2s per day for second counsel.

Mr .Wright applied for leave to move for a non-suit, judgment for defendant, and a motion jfor a new trial. .

The case of A. Parsons and another (Mr.McDougal!) v. F. A. Anderson and others, (Mr Wilding, K.C.), which, it was mentioned, would not come on for hearing, is ripe for trial, and will be proceeded with. It is to be mentioned to his Honour again, and a date fixed after the Invercargill engagements have beon arranged.