SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 125, 13 February 1918, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL HUTT COUNTY CASE ' In the Supreme Court yesterday Eis Ilunour Mr. Justice .tlosldnt; delivered 10.-ened jiidgment in the u-a.ii! ul' .Leonard C'lbiike v. the Hull; County Council. i'iiuutilT wad ii carrier and used in his business a motor lorry of which ho was tlio owner. On May til, I'Jlli, while plaintiff ivas driving the lorry, loaded with furniture; over (he road the road gave way, upsetting the lorry itnd causing it ami the furniture to be severely damaged. Plaintiff alleged that the accident was due to the negligence of the defendant council, in improperly constructing the road and drain, m not making adequate provision for the escape of water, in employing insufficient material, and in failing to properly maintain the road and drain. Defendant denied negligence, and contended that the plaintiff brought about the accident by negligent driving. The jury awarded tho plaintiff JttoO damages. His Honour, in his judgment, said ho had come to the conclusion that Lliere must be a new trial on the ground I hat the findings of the jury with regard !o negligouce were so defective that lie could not without interfering with the functions of the jury, by finding facts himself, determine on which <ido judgment should be entered. In tlio nrst place tho jury found that the negligent construction of the pipe drain was an effective cause of the accident, and in tho next place that the accident was partly due to the plaintiff's driving 100 rear the edge of the road. I'pon consideration of the law it appeared to Hi.! Htmour that the issue as to jilainlifl s contributory negligence was hardly frain. Ed so as to elicit an answer which cotilji cover the whole of tho. necessary grouiid, mid that as answered the whole of the ground was not covered. A question of contributory negligence was always a difficult.one to placo before a jury and opinions varied as to the best mode ol doiii" that so that they mißiit fully appreciate the roil bearing of Die nuestion. His Honour believed that Hie best form in which the question could bo put in Ibo present case was whether the plaintiff could by reasonable care and caution li.i.vo avoided the accident. As upon the "round-stated, he considered a new (rial should he panted, there was no need for liira to decide the question of whether the verdict r,-a; against the weight of pvidew, inn* whether tlio jury viewing the whole of the evidence reasonably could not properly find a negligent construction of the drain No costs were allowed cither side ■U the hearing Mr. T. Young appeared for Cloako, and Mr, T. W. Hislop tor the Hutt County Council.

A LAW POINT. His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard argument on a_ point of law in an action brought oj George Henry. Thompson, agent. Wellington against Herbert Henry CooV, farm ealesmaii, Chrislcln.rch, for the recovery of j>l33 commission for work performed by plaintiff as auent for the defendant in Wellington. The point winch the Court was asked to dec do was whether plaintiff must be licensed under I be T,imi Agente Act, 1912. before -he had a right to sue for commission. MY C W Tnnghiim, on behalf of plaintiff,' slated that Thompson was an cmplovpo of defendant, and the agreement'between Ihe parties provided for (ho payment, of wages and commission. Ifr fj'V von Jlaast. for the defendant, contended that plaintiff was a. land agent and should have been licensed. Judgment, which was reserved, will bo delivered to-day.

DUNEDIN SESSION

SOM.K SERIOUS CHAKCES. By Telegraph-Prena Association. Dunedin, February 12. In the Supremo Court, .lames Sutherland charged with indecently osf/iulting ;i lilUe girl, was found not guilty on the ground that he. was not responsible for his actions. An order was made for the detention of Ihe accused until tlio pleasure of the Minister of Justice is known. Duncnn Allison was sentenced to tnreo months' imprisonment op u charge of attempting to discharge n. firearm with intent to do grflvious bodily hunu To (Jonstable Fox at Milton, and to be detained for reformative purposes for not more than three years. David Hill was admitted to probation for twelve months on a charge of I he. theft of M 18s. Gel., (he property of the Government.

Lenders Act, which gave tlie Court power fo (iiiy whclhnr iiifcrrst ivas pxcessivp or not. Tlio interest paid by dct'endant ame-unted to iil per cont-., whiuli it was conlondcd wu-i ;i rpas'o.'i.iWo ])fi<:Dnl<if;c; tlio coin puny claimed 40 jn>r (■Put. Mr. S. L'. M'Girtliy. SM. who heard tlio caso, reeci'ved liis docision.