SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2522, 17 March 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS

This Day,

(Before Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.)

THE COACH ACCIDENT AT THE TAIERI. James H. Pearce v. John T. Chaplin— This was a claim for LIOOO, for in juries rece i ved through the upsetting of one of defendant’s coaches. Mr Macasscy for the plaintiff; Mr Smith for tiio defendant.

Mr Macasssy, in opening the case, pointed out that in cases where human life was en-

trusted to a carrier’s charge the law required the utmost care and attention on his part; therefore, if the jury, after hearing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident by which plaintiff was injured was unavoidable their verdict must, be for the defendant ; but if one which could have been avoided by human me ms they must find for

1 the plaintiff. The present was not a frivo- \ 1-jus cise for the jecovery of damages, but one in which the plaintiff had sustained substantial damage. The following evidence was given : ;i Jas. H. Pearce, the plaintiff, in July last, | had an engagement as chief officer of the i| B autiful Star at Ll3 per month. On July !: 12 last was an inside passenger hy Cobb’s coach from Waihola to town. When about ( ten miles from town, on the Taieri plain, i the coach capsized, and witness was thrown on his side, breaking his collar bone and ij receiving other injuries to his right shoulder. ;I Where the coach capsized, the road j newly raised, and there was a slope of about ; two yards on each side. Was insensible for I a time, but was sensible when taken out of 1 the coach. Was brought into town that | evening, and w.ts attended fur two months by ) Dr Alexander, who was sentby the defendant, audjwas examined by Urs t Inline and Burrowes. Mr Chaplin came and saw witness a few daj’s after the accident, and advised him to summon one Finch, the driver of the dray ; which was standing on the road where the ;! coach capsized, but declined. Witness said |it was Carmichael, the driver’s fault; he \ should have pulled np. Chaplin said there I was an action then pending between Boss | and himself, and if he did anything he might i injure his action. He told witness to send 1 him a letter stating what he would take ; he i replied LoOO, when defendant made a verbal [ answer “if he (plaintiff) had sent him a t letter for LIOO or so, he would have sent a cheque, ” Mr Mansfield told him they would give him LIOO, hut if he did not take that, and went to law, he would not get 100 pence. Since the accident he had not been able to fulfil his engagements, or do work of any kind. His general health was, and always had been good ; but he bad lost the use of his right arm. ,'vir Chaplin did not say if witness had asked for something LIOO, he •would have paid it rather than he involved in litigation. Mr Chaplin wanted him to summon Finch for L3O, saying if he sued for more, the latter would go into the Bankruptcy Court; and lie would summon him for the value of his horse which had been hurt, and give the am nrat to plaintiff. Thomas M‘Kinlay, box-passeng< r on the day in question, corroborated plaintiff’s evidence as to the state of the road. There was room for the coach to have passed safely, had it been carefully driven. Did not hoar Carmichael call out to the drayman. Gerard Spooner, another passenger, thought there was room for the c )ach and dra. to pass ; the break was put on simultaneously with the coach o\e turning. Samuel Finch was driving three horses and a heavy-laden dray on the day in question. His dray had got into some ruts. When the coach was 50 yards distant, he waved his hand for the driver to stop ; but Carmichael did dot appear to take any notice. Witness was ou the far side of his horses. The coach capsized before it was abreast of the dray. Did not see Carmichael signal. Dr Alexander said the plaintiff had now only the partial use of his right arm ; it would never get well. As a working man, be would never be of the same value to himself or an employer as he was before the accident. For the defence the following evidence was given James Carmichael, the driver of the coach on the day in question, said he first saw Finch’s dray 7 chains distant, an I when he got within 3 chains beckoaed him to keep his own side. Did not see Finch beckon. Was going at four to live miles an hour ; but when within tiity yards of the dray put on the break, and was going slow. Finch’s dray, in being drawn out, got right across the road ; the projection of the dray caused the coach’s leaders to swerve suddenly, and caused the capsize. Did not pull up, because he considered there was plenty of room to pass had not Finch’s dray projected more by his efforts to get it out of the ruts. The jury found for the plaintiff—damages L2OO. The Court then adjourned until to-mor-row.