RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4111, 1 May 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, May 1. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., K.M.)

S. Clayton v. Thomas Brown, of the North East Valley Hotel.—Claim LIOO, for damages sustained on March 23. Mr Haggitt appeared for plaintiff, Mr Hams for defendant.—Mr Harris mentioned that the facts had been admitted to a certain extent, and nothing remained but to assess the actual damages sustained. It was useless to deny that defendant’s horse had run away and caused the damages.—Mr Haggitt stated the facts. On the day in question Mr Clayton was driving his wife to Anderson’s Bay to inspect some furniture about to be sold. In driving through the Octagon plaintiff noticed a cab, without any person in it, coming along at a terrific pace. It turned out afterwards that the driver, who was in defen dant’s employ, had gone into a public-house at the corner, and that the horse had run away. Directly Mr Clayton saw the coach coming along, his first endeavor was to avoid an accident as much as possible, and he consequently drove as close to the kerb-stone as

possible and brougt his horse to a stand-still. The cab, when nearly opposite, swerved across the street, and the right wheel caught the wheel of plaintiff’s buggy. Plaintiff's horse started off and plaintiff was dragged across the dash-board, and a considerable distance along the road, till the horse was stopped by some persons in the street. Mrs Clayton was thrown out of the buggy and struck the kerb-stone, sustaining injuries which confined her to the house for a considerable time, during which period she was attended by Dr. Alexander. The claim for repairs to the buggy had been settled by defendant. In addition to their personal injuries, the clothes worn by Mr and Mrs Clayton were almost entirely destroyed. Daring her illness Mrs Clayton had to be attended by a nurse.—Plaintiff stated that when he called on defendant with a view of settlement and pointed out that both Mrs Clayton and himself might have been killed, defendant stated that had they been killed before they would not have been in the way of the runaway horse and cab. —The principal evidence for the defence was given by Mr Brown, who was not driving. He said ; I saw Mr Clayton the some evening. I went to his house as soon as I heard of the' accident, and offered to take the buggy to Robin, and to pay all necessary medical expenses. He said nothing about the loss of a stud or any other serious damage. I paid for the repair of the buggy and all expenses incurred by detention of the buggy during repair, and for repairs of harness. I went again to ask for Mrs Clayton and saw Mrs Dods. I then got a letter from Mr Clayton, after which I saw Mr Clayton, and it was then agreed to go to arbitration. I went with Mr Button to Clayton’s office and there fixed for the Criterion next day, when Dods asked me to sign a statement showing an account for L 64. I refused to sign and the arbitration fell through. I saw Mr Clayton afterwards ;he said he would not take less than LSO, which I refused to pay. I said, “You met with an accident in Princes street, but had you gone on the Forbury road you might have had your neck broken.” I' did not say my driver was so careless that he could not be trusted to run to the races, and so had been put to drive in town. I have refused to pay claims which my own solicitor has recommended me to settle. His Worship in delivering judgment said that the damages inflicted were the result of negligence on the p'.rt of defendant’s servant, for which defendant was responsible; and the circumstences under which the damage was suffered were such as not to entitle the defendant very much to the consideration of the Court. It was not one of those cases of accident where something ould be urged for the driver, but the result of gross negligence. The ordinary rule for the measurement of damages in such cases was not the mere pecimiavy loss the sufferer sustained through accident or injury, the loss of time was taken into account. Here plaintiff was not the individual sufferer—it was his wife; but plaintiff was deprived of her services and the comfort of her society for some time. In such cases it was impossible to fix adequate compensation, and having fully considered the matter he assessed the damages at L 45. Costs were also granted. ‘