SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16856, 9 June 1920, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. (Bo;ore his Honour Mr Justice Herdman.) COLLISION BETWEEN GIG AND MOTOR-CYCLE. Tho case in which Francis E. Anderson (Mr W. J. Sim) sued Frederick Crump (Mi M. J. Greason, with, him Mr C'. S. Thomas) for £650, damages in respect of a. collisicn between a gig and a motor-cycle, was resumed. yesterday before his Honour and a jury of which Mr M. W. Wood field was foreman. Counsel addressed the jury. His Honour summed up and said that the main question the jury had to consider, in determining negligence, was as to whether tho driver of the motor-oyck) was os his correct side of tho road, or whether the driver of the jig wa4, on hie correct side of the road. Replying to the foreman, his Honour said that the jury might take tho fact that a vehicle was driven without a light as being evidence from which negligenco might he interred, but the jury was not bound to do £0. His Honour submitted certain issues to tho jury, which, after a retirement of a little over an hour, returned with the following answers: — 1. (a) "Was Edward Anderson, the brother of the plaintiff, guilty of negligence? Yes. (b> Ii the answer to tho above issue is in tho 'affirmative, wr.t his negligence the fiole cause of tho accident? No. (c) Was the accident causcd partly by the negligence of Edward Alexander Anderson, and i partly by negligence of defendant, Crump? i Yc£. * 2. (a) Was the defendant Crump guilty of negligence? Yes. (b) Was tho plaintiff, An-dor-'.or.. guilty of nogligenco? No. j (.") If the plaintiff and defendant, wero ! both guiltv of negligence, whose negligence was tho direct cause of the collision? No answer, (a) Was it the negligenco of defendant? No answer, (b) Was it the negligenco of plaintiff? No answer. 4. Wliafc damas-os, if any, is plaintiff entitled to? £300. On the suggestion of Mr Greeson his Honour put the following further question to tho jury: "\Va3 Crump, or Edward Alexander Anderson, directly responsible for tha accident?" Tho foreman replied that the jury's unanimous answer was: "Both Cramp and Edward Alexander Anderson .were equally responsible for the accident." On Mr Grosson's application the case wns adjourned till next week, when legal argument on points raised, by the jiury's findings will bo heard. EXPLOSION AT ASHBURTON HIGH SCHOOL. ; His Honour gave judgment on tho nan- J ■suit points raised by defendant's counsel in ; the action hi which Hugh McLean Urcrohart, 1 by his guardian. Alexander Unjuhart, claimed "1000 from the Asliburton High School Board of Governors :n respect- of damages for injuries received by plaintiff as tha result of an explosion in tho laboratory of the school. Tho case was heard before a jury which awarded £500 damage.?. Mr Pumell. for the defendant Board, claimed that plaintiff should be non-suited on the ground that tho relation of waste >• and servant did not esnt j between the Board and tho teaching staff ! employed by it. Ilia Honour, iu dismissing the motion for non-suit and in giving judgment for tli3 amount awarded by the jury, set out fhai it was conceded that if the Ashburton High School Act, 1573, stood alone, a teacher apooiuted by th" Board would be a servant of "the Brwrc!. It was urorued that tho extent of the Board's liability for negligfv.ee of a teacher had been changed by the Education Act, 1011, notably Section 02. subacciion 1. After examining tb t> section •o! I this Act relied on bv the Board's counsel, | his Honour paid that ho ws.« unable to accept ' counsel''? argument and held that, despito ; tho system of control f~<~t out in tho Act, the control by the Board was emphatically [ r.-nflserted. U," his Honour conI tiwuvl, "little to distinguish this case from Smith v. Martin and Kiiigston-upon-Hull Corporation, m which, in similar circumstances, it was held that a teacher was the servant of tho education linthoritv. In my onmion control by tho defendant Board impji»s that th« Board will, from timo to time, satisfy itself that instruction is properly given bv fho teachers employed and that it may. if it pleases, giro directions to a teacher in relation to his work, which the teacher would be bound to obey." At tho hearing Mr Alpers. with him Mr W.iTiklyn, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr C. W. I'urnell for th~ defendant Boird. Mr TV*. ■T. S' n\ received judgment on Mr Purnell's ■behalf. ALLEGED FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION. Charles Thoimer (Mr F. S. Wilding) claimad £330 from Allan Hopkins (Mr F. W. Johnston) for alleged false and fraudulent misrepresentation. . Mr Johnston applied for an adjournment on account of defendant's illness, regarding the. naturo of which Dr. J. C. Pairman, defendant's modical attendaut, gavo evidence. A certificate from Dr. Saudstan was also lead. "Mr Wilding opposed tha application for adjournment, and flaid that they questioned defendant's bona fides. His Honour granted the application, remarking that it would not bo in the interests of justice to hear the case in defendant's absence. He allowed Mr Wildins* £5 5s for his appearance, and adiourned tho case, which will be, probably, heard in August, CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Tho caso in which Caroline Annio Howarde (Mr Twyueham) sued Norman Perciva.l Majah (Mr Fleshcr) was adjourned till Monday. • ' The Court rose till 10.30 a.m. to-day.