CIVIL SITTINGS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1218, 29 August 1911, Page 3

CIVIL SITTINGS.

CASE OF.THE NINETEEN CAUSES. JUDGE OUTSPOKEN. "WHOLE FACTS COULD HAVE BEEN • SET ON ONE SHEET." Words of much meaning fell from the Judge at the civil sittings of the Supremo Court, which commenced yesterday before Jlr. Justice Sim. The first caso taken was that of C. B. J.- Midlane (by his guardian ad litem C. T. Jlidlane) v. Thomas Highet and the Wellington City Couiicil-a claim for'.£6oo damans. The case was heard before a jury of twelve. Mr. F. G. Bolton appeared for the plaintiff, C. B. J'. Jlidlane, Mr. E. K. Kirkcaidio for the defondant, Higher, and the city solicitor (Mr. .J. O'Sto) for the City Council. It appeared from what was set for Hi that, on December 14, 1910, Charles Bruce John Midlane (nominal plaintiff), who is a lad six years of age, was riding a tricycle down Grafton Road, Eoseneatb and lost control of the machine, with the result that boy and: tricycle dashed through an opening in the fence bounding the road, and were carried over air embankment about eighteen feet high. The lad fell on to a concrete structure on defendant's. Highet's property, audsus- ' tained serious injuries. His sKiui was fractured in three'places, and he received injuries to the eyes, and a number of bruises on the body. He had subsequently suffered from facial paralysis, and impaired eyesight. For some time he had had daily visits from Dr. Elliott, aad ho had also S attended by Drs. Harty and Ewart. The attendance of a trained nurse e lad also been made necessary. He had not yet completely recover-

It' was alleged that an excavation (made by Highet) had road line; that such excavation had been ma le wi h the City Councils consent and that the City Council tad failed to keep the guard-fenee .in proper repair. Plaintiff therefore, claimed ,£6OO danSes from Highet >d the City Councl iointlv or alternatively. *. 3 There were nineteen causes of.action in the statement of claim, and Mr Bolton was delivering his opening address to Hie iurv when he was lnterruptoii. M' O'Shea: I suggest, your Honour, •that the English procedure bo adopted, anu the w» of the pleadings be read to His°Co-ur: It would only bewilder the Tury It is a most extraordinary production!' There was no ™**frjg such a lehgtV document. If tho state ~.,,[ of claim had been brought betore ml I should, have struck it out as an abuse of the procedure of the Couit There was no necessity to ring tne changes nineteen times. oddres^ Mr. Bolton proceeded *itl "I s f ar tu s „' hut had on y advanced a little turuier when the nineteen causes of action again came in for criticism. ' , His Honour remarked that the whole of the facts could have been set out on a single sheet of foolscap, where*,, in the present statement they could onb confuse the jury. The statement of claim was an example of perverted ingenuity and. if either defending counsel had applied to his Hbnour to have it struck out, he would have had no hesitation in acceding to "quest. Mr. Bolton explained that he thought that it was advisable to show all the grounds of action. His intention was to simplify the matter for the jury. Evidence for plaintiff was given by C. T Jlidlane, father of the injured lad. Dr. Elliott, Dr. Harty, Dr. Ewart, and several others. , > During the examination of witnesses, both defending counsel made objections on tho ground tbat Jlr. Bolton was putting leading questions.- His Honour, on one occasion, remarked that, if counsel would address their objections to hira instead of conversing among themselves, ho would rule on them. Some of the objections wore upheld, and when the last witness was in the box, his Honour stopped Jlr. Bolton from proceeding on a particular lino of examination, ' which counsel contended was an answer to one of tho pleas in defendant Highet's statement of defence. Jtr. Bolton thereupon expressed his intention of withdrawing from tho case, and instructing other counsel, but, on his Honour's suggestion that he should reconsider his decision, ho decided to go on, and tho incident closed quietly. The ' main lines of defenco were that Grafton Road was not a street, and that (if it were a street) it was a public work, and the case was therefore one for compensation; that there was no proof of liability on the part of the City, Council tor anything that had-been done in connection with the road; and that the accident was no worse by reason of the fact that there was an opening in tho fence than it would have been had the fence been intact. Several other points were also raised. Mr. Kirkcaldie and Jlr. O'Shea had both addressed the jury before 5 p.m., when the Court adjourned until this morning.