JURY'S VERDICT

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 84, 6 October 1931, Page 8

JURY'S VERDICT

INTERROGATION BY JUDGE AN INTERESTING POIN7 ' An interesting point as to whether the presiding Judge at a trial has'a right to interrogate a jury where it has returned a general verdict was raised in an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Reed, which was heard .by, the Court of Appeal yesterday afternoon and to-day. The ..case was one in which his Honour, subsequent to tho trial of an action for damages, set aside a jury's verdict in favour of James Grey Wight, labourer, of Petone, against tho Cunningham Carrying Co., Ltd. The' Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Ostler, and Mr. Justice South were on the Bench. Mr. P. J. 0 'Regan appeared for the appellant, Wight, and Mr. E. Parry for the Cunningham Carrying Co., Ltd. According to his' statement of claim at tho trial of the case in the Supreme Court, Wight was employed by tho Public Works Department on 21st October, 1930, on widening the Western Hutt road. He stood aside to allow a motor-lorry, driven on behalf of the defendant, to pass him, but was struck and crushed against the rock face or bluff on the western side of tho road and was seriously injured. It was alleged that tho accident was -due to negligence on tho part of the driver, in that he failed to keep a proper lookout and to manage the lorry efficiently, and that he drove unnecessarily close to the bluff or rock face. Wight claimed £1198 11s damages. Tho statement of defence denied negligence by the driver of the motorlorry. Evidence was heard, and upon tho jury returning a verdict for Wight for £452 6s, Mr. Justice Seed, after advising the foreman and other members of the jury that the question, need not be ansxvered if it was not desired, asked in what respect they considered tho lorry driver was negligent. The foreman replied that the jury considered that the lorry driver should have seen Wight had reached a place of safety. Mr. O 'Began moved for judgment for Wight, and Mr. Parry, pursuant to leave reserved, moved for a non-suit, or, in the alternative, judgment for tha defendant, or a new trial. Subsequently legal argument was heard, and Mr. Justice Beed, in his reserved decision, said he thought no duty was'cast upon the lorry driver to sco that Wight had taken up a safe position, which was the ground upon which the jury had found that the driver was negligent. His Honour said that in his opinion no facts had been established from which negligence on the part of the lorry-driver might be reasonably inferred. In those circumstances there should be judgment for the defendant. His Honour entered judgment for tho defendant, with costs, witnesses' expenses, and disbursements. In opening the legal argument yesterday afternoon, Mr. O'Began contended that tlie rationale of Mr. Justice Beed's decision was based upon, his Honour's interrogation of the jury. Counsel made the following two submissions, which he proceeded to elaborate in detail: (1) Ho one, not even the presiding Judge, has a right; to interrogate the jury where it has returned a general verdict, one way or the other. (2) That the jury on the evidence was entitled to find for the plaintiff. Mr. Parry contended that at the end of the plaintiff's case there was no evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff; and that on the evidence of the plaintiff, taken together with the evidence for the defendant, the jury could not reasonably; find for tho plaintiff. The Court reserved its decision.