LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2773, 17 May 1916, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT

CIVIL SESSIONS CONTINUED

In the Supromo Court yesterdny His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking continued the hearing of the civil action in which

Alice E. Pearce, music teacher, proceeded against Henry Ernest Kempthorne and

Wilhclni Farquliar Eggers to recover tho sum of .£5Ol damages for alleged wrongful distraint. Some particulars of the claim and the defence were published in yesterday's issue. Mr. O. N. Beere appeared for tho plaintiff, Mr. M. Myers For tho defendant Kempthorne, and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb for the defendant Eggers. . -,-. Hearing of further evidence and addresses to the jury occupied tho Court until 5 p.m. After considering the case for an hour and a quarter, the jury returned and answered the questions submitted to them in tho following form— "> 1. Was any demand of possession mado by Eggers ou April 5 before or at tho time of making the distress?— Answer: i'es. - . . | 2. Did the plaintiff then refuse to give up possession?— Answer: Yes. 3. Did Kempthorne (a) authorise tho distress?—" No. (b) Or subsequently -ratify and adopt' the distress with the knowledge of the essential facts?—" Yes." , Or '(c) With intention, to ratify in all i events?—" Yes." i. Were tho payments on and after February 1 mado by plaintiff on account of arrears'—Answer: No. 5. Was the continuance in possession after February 1 on the footing of a new tenancy, or of a holding over by permission ?—Answer: Unconsciously, Eggers created new tenancy. 6. What damages (if any) is the. plaintiff entitled to recover ?—Answer: Furniture to be returned with all charges; .£lO for loss of pupils; .£3 10s. for extra cost of living; ,£25 special damages. Mr. Beere moved for judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict, but Mr. Myers submitted that some questions as .to tho full amount of damages were.open to argument. •Tlis Honour-adjourued the matter for further consideration.

A. WILLIS STREET .ACCIDENT. The case of Arthur Wnldemar Schaef v. E. awl E. Tingoy. and Co., Ltd., was heard before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stout) and a jury. The claim was one for i! 565 damages, alleged to be due on account of injuries received. Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for. the plaintiff, and Mr. T. Reave*'for 'the defendant company. ■In the statement of claim it-was set forth that the plaintiff was proceeding along Willis Street on his motor-cycle when a ladder, either negligently left or handled by the defendant company's servant while engaged in work at'the "Evening Post'' building, Ml to the street-and struck the plaintiff, inflicting injuries which caused him 6erious harm and expense. In addition it was claimed that his health was permanently impaired by the accident, and that the motor cycle that he was riding suffered considerable damage. Special damages were assessed at .£65 and.general damages at .£SOO. . The statement of defence consisted of a denial of the allegations of negligence against the defendant company or its servants. Lengthy evidonco was placed before the jury, and the addresses of counsel and His Honour's summing up did not conclude until G o'clock. The jury, after a lengthy retirement returned a verdict in favour of the plain t.ilT for d£22o, "and judgment was entere( up for this amount, with cost 9 accordinj to scale.