LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2245, 3 September 1914, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

divorce'court.

SUPREME COURT

CITY TRAMWAY ACCIDENT

A PUZZLED JURY

JUDGMENT FOR CORPORATIOh

In the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking and a special jury of twelve, hearing was concluded of the action in which Henry Adam Mackay, collector for tie Public Trust Office, at Wellington, sued the Wellington City Corporation to rccovor the- sum of £1109 Is 6d. alleged to be due for physical and nervous injury sustained in a tram accident at tile corner of Kent Terrace and Courtenay Place on March 15, 1913. Particulars of the claim and tha defence wore published in yesterday's issue. Mr. A. W. Blair, with Mr. D. R. Hoggard, appeared for the plaintiff, while the City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea). appeared for the defendant corporation. Evidence in the :pase-was concluded vestfirday mowing, but the addresses, of counsel and Hie Honour occupied the Court until 4.10 p.m. IV jury, after a- retirement of 40 minutes, answered the issues as follow:— ■ - 1. Was the plaintiff physically struck by any part of the.equipment of the tramway?— No. a. Did tho plaintiff sustain any shook to his nervous system by reason of the occurrence in question ?—Yes. 8. Was tho ovefhoad gear and the trolly and standard and the plant generally constructed ill such a riianr.Or that al: defects, which reasonable care, skill, ami forethought could guard against, wen guarded against?— Yes. 4. Was the overhead gear and thf trolly and standard on the day of the accident in perfect working order?— Yes. . ■ • t). Did the defendant corporation ot the day of the accident so use the sai< gear and plant as to minimise as mucl as possible the risk of accident?— Yes. 6. Was the striking or shock due ti an> *auli or defect in the equipnicn or the mode of using it which the cor poration should or might have gnardei against or remedied by tho exercise o rofisohablo care, tkill, and forethought ■--No. 7., If so, what sum (if any) Is th plaintiff entitled 'to as damages?—(a For special damages, £80. (b) Fc general damagee, nothing.. Mr. O'Shea said ho would move fo judgment on the findings. His Honour said ho wouhl like to as the jilfy how they arrived at the findin of special damages. • Tho foreman (Mr. T. Dwan) replio that what had puzzled them was tli wording of the last of the issues. The wore not clear as to whether the Wort "if ■so" applied to issue (6), .or, to tl: wholo of the issues. The award of £5 was based on tho answer to the eccon issue. ■ ;; ■ His Honour said ho was sorry tl wording liad troubled Miem. "If so" ri ferred only to issue (6), and unless th< found that the corporation had ' bee guilty of negligence they could not awai damages. ... The foreman, after consulting -wii tho other jurors, explained that thf were unanimously of opinion that tl corporation had; not been guilty of ned ceiK-Oi and they therefore altered the finding on the 'question of special dar ages to "nothing. ,. Judgment was accordingly entered f< the defendant corporation, with cost* i per scale, witnesses' expenses and di bursommits. 8 sniinens for second da ' and certificate for special jury. TRADE MARKS. / Applications under Sefition 64 of tl amended Trade Marks Act were det with by His Honour the Chief Justi (Sii Robert Stout) in tho Supreme Con yesterday morning. Mr. ,T. Young a plied for the registration of "Horlicl Malted Milk" and "Califdrman Syr of Pigs," while Mr. G. H Fell appli for th<? registration of the word "P mus" to b'e used in connection wi stoves, soldering apparatus cream sc arators, and dairy utensils. Mr. P.. K. Macassey, of the Crown Law Ofli< represented tho Registrar of Patents. After hearing tho arguments of cot seli His. Honour intimated that Would give decision on the question day, AN AWARD CONTESTED. An award made by arbitrator? settle a dispute-in connection with building contract was beforo His Hi our the Chief Justice (Sir Rob Stout) in the Supreme Cpurt yesterd when, one of tho parties requested Court to set tho award aside. The quest was made by T. E. K. Burgc dentist, of Wellington,] and was oppo by Isaac Clark and Son s builders, Wellington. Mr. M. Myers appea for Burgess, while-Mr. T. Neave peafed for Clark and Son. It appeared that Clark and; Son 1 cntcrfed into a contract to erect a Ini in" for Burgess for the sum of £li In" tho event of the parties being able to', agree upon certain matt arbitration was k> be resorted'to. dispute arose over certain items, tho arbitrators were called in and ?. their award. Burgess how asked t this award bo set aside on th". gm that the strict legal procedure had been adhered, to. Decision was reserved , .

CRIMINAL TRIALS. I WANGANUI SESSIONS. (By Telegraph—Prcse Association.) Wanganui, September 2.. The jury disagreed in the case against Joseph lvess. In the Supreme Court to-day, Mr. Justice Edwards fined Alexander Gilcbrist £25 for theft of a stamped receipt; GHdiAist was convicted last session, but the conviction was the subject of an appeal, and the conviction was upheld. MURDER CHARGE AGAINST A CHINESE. Invercargill, September 2. ■ Loclc Kin was charged with the riiurtier of Hector Morrison, whom .he shot after annoyance by larrikins, ' After a forty-minutes' retirement the jury found accused guilty of manslaughter, and recommended that the utmost clemency of the Court be extended. His' Honour Mr. Justice Sim said that since accused bad served three i months be did not feel justified ill inflicting any further punishment, ine accused was accordingly convicted, ana. ordered to come up for sentence when colled upon. . Ernest D. Mackenzie, for forging all order for whisky, a«d ~A n ,T : Sl'Cutelieon. for stealing £5 each sentenced to reformative treatment for a period not exceeding three year 3. • ■ .•' '

JUDGE V. JUDGE. Wanganui, September 2. In Divorce, Mary Louise Judge was granted a. dissolution" of her marriage with Goorgft Judge on the ground of adultery.