SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4181, 21 July 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL 3ITTINGS.

Thursday, July 20. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and a special jury.)

O’HEIB V. BARNES,

Claim LI,OOO, for alleged libellous statements contained in certain letters addressed by defendant, as City Inspector to the CorS oration. A verdict was given for defenant on all the issues. Friday, July 21. JAMBS m’bRIDE V, ALEX. RROODBK, HENRY BItOODEN, AND JAMES BROODEN. Claim L 1,500, for compensation for injuries done. Mr Macasaey appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Haggitt for defendant. The declaration set forth (1) that before and at the time of the grievances hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was in the employment and service of the defendants (railway contractors) as a day laborer, and while he was in such service and employment the plaintiff, at the request of the defendants and in discharge of his duty as their servant, was riding on a certain railway truck belonging to tho defendants in and upon a certain line of railway then in course of construction by the defendants near Oamaru, and each track was when the plaintiff was so riding being driyen and impelled along the said line of rial way by a locomotive steam-engine, the property of the defendants, and then being a ider their management, direction, and control ; (2) that the said truck in which the plaintiff was so riding was driven upon and against certain metal, stones, and rubbish then lying on the rails of the sa.d line, whereby the said plaintiff was thrown out and ejected from the truck, and seriously and permanently injured on the spine and rendered unfit for work, and plaintiff has in consequence thereof boon put to great loss and expense in procuring medical and other assistance, and in maintaining himself while out of work. (3) That the defendants well knowing that the said railway-line was not in a safe or fit condition to require the plaintiff to travel thereon, and that the said truck was insufficiently and improperly constructed to render it safe or prudent to

drive the sane along the said railwayline in front of the said locomotive steam engine negligently, carelessly, and improperly required the plaintiff, who had no knowledge of the unsafe condition of the line or the insufficient and improper oon- ■ struetion of the said railway track, to travel on the line when the same was unfenced and obstructed by stones, metal, and rubbish, occasioned by traffic crossing the said line, and while and when the said truck was unprovided with any means or appliances for removing such obstacles and encumbrances from off the line, and by and through the negligence, unskilfulness, and default of tho defendants and their servants in the management and driving of the said truck in which the plaintiff was riding was thrown off the railway line, and the plaintiff sustained serious mjuiies. Defendants, in their pleas, denied all the material allegations contained in the declaration.

Several engineers were examined and a quantity of medical testimony was adduced. Plaintiff was under examination when our reporter left.