Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

COURT OF APPEAL

■ A MOTOR MISHAP

DAMAGES AWARD DISPUTED

The Court of Appeal continued its session yesterday! His Honour Sir John Denniston presided, ' and "with him Their Honours Mr. Justice Cooperj Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Hosking ivero associated. ' -._■■."',■ ' The Court heard an appeal against' the decision of the ~ Chiefi Justice in the case Alfred Ernest Cocker v. Mrs'. N. Nightingale, an action for damages taken, in the- Supreme Court. In the Supreme .Court Cocker alleged that on February 28, 1916, he was crossing Lambton. Quay for the purpose of boarding a tramcar, when tho defendant' s.. servant (one . Marshall) so carelessly," negligently, and unskilfully, and at such an excessive speed, drove a motor-car, the. property of the defendant, that he caused the same to strike tho plaintiff, throwing him down .and dragging'him along the street. The plaintiff further,, alleged that he was severely -injured, and he therefore claimed from the defendant ■ £501 genoi al damages, and £107 special agos. ..' Tho defendant denied that Marshall, ■who drovo tho motor-car; was at the timo of tho occurrence acting in ■ tho course of ,his employment, by the defendant." Tho defendant also alleged that there was contributory negligenco on the part of tho plaintiff. His Honour tho Chief , Justice, in liis judgment, held that tho plaintiff was entitled to recover £180 damages, and £61 os. Id. costs. "Upon the question whether Marshall was acting in tho courso of his employment as defendant's servant) His Honour found that ho was so acting. ■ Tho defendant took the matter bel'oro tho Court of Appeal, which heard argumont by Mr. T. M. Wilford (for the appellant), but did not call oh tho'opposing counsel. Decision was rcscrvedi

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19170502.2.92

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3068, 2 May 1917, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
280

COURT OF APPEAL Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3068, 2 May 1917, Page 9

COURT OF APPEAL Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3068, 2 May 1917, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert