CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 340, 14 February 1902, Page 3

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

The case Arthur Cooper v. George Herbert Adams, cla'im £55, less £ls, damages for injuries sustained by an assault, was resumed at the Court yesterday, before Mr Barton, S.M., the plaintiff being represented by Mr Nolan, while Messrs R. N. Jones and DeLautour appeared for the defence.

Mr DeLautour said that he would call evidence to establish points on which they would rely, and in the face of such evidence they would ask His Worship to review the judgment given on the nonsuit point. It would .he shown that Mr Gault had been authorised to enter into the agreement for plaintiff, who had acquiesced in it by retaining the £ls paid through Mr Gault. As to the assault both parties had been willing to take part in the fight, and therefore plaintiff had taken the risk. Defendant deposed that he had met plaintiff on July 16 last, and asked him if a rumor was true tiiat Cooper} did not intend to pay a debt to him (Adams). Plaintiff said that it was a lie,, and that defendant was a liar for making such a statement- Witness said that "he believed it, and that they should go into the stable and settle it by one giving the other a punch on the i a w. , , . His Worship : I do not see how that would settle it. . . , Continuing, witness said that plaintiff replied, “ No, we will have it here.” Witness took this as a challenge, and thereupon struck plaintiff, who was preparing for light. The blow was not a heavy one, but plaintiff fell down. If -witness had not struck plaintiff quickly Cooper would have struck witness. Plaintiff said it was a good job his leg was hurt for if it were not he would have got up and dealt it out to him. Witness had no idea when he struck the blow that the plaintiff’s leg was broken and regretted the accident. After plaintiff s rpmoval to the hospital witness went to sw him Plaintiff said that if Witness gave him £2O it would be sufficient lor the damage done. Witness replied that he would gno £lo out ot friendly feeling, and not because he £ls, ie but wus unable to sign aR ment, Mr Gault, who was at the hospital was called in and told of toe agreement, Cooper authorising hull to tike the’money. Next day he, paid Gault £ls, hi accordance with tne agreement The understanding was) S TL to be in tell settlement J all claims. Gault refused to gne a receipt without seeing a solicitor ana they went to Mr Jones. Gault was asked what statements had been made by Cooper in his presence. He pa a the £ls and took a receipt. Proceedings were then taken against him m the Police Court. Upon receiving a demand from Messrs Nolan and Skeet acting for Cooper, lie informed them that he had a' receipt from Gault. He would not have paid the £ls if he had l known .Court proceedings were .to he

brought against him ; it was fully understood there would be none brought. By Mr Nolan : He told Mr Nolan when coming to the Police Court that he had a receipt. Did not ask what Cooper would take to settle it. Mr Nolan did not tell him that he had nothing to do with the Police Court case, but that he was prepared to advise Cooper to settle for £]olJ.’ Cooper had not his hands in his pockets when witness struck him. Never offered Cooper £lO ; always considered he had settled the case. William Gault related the conversation at the hospital. Defendant said, “ I have agreed with Cooper to give him £ls for the damage done, and if he is longer than we expected and 1 have any luck I will give him another; fiver. J won’t see him wanting for a pound.” Cooper replied, “ Bill, will you get tile £ls and fix it up for me ?’ Witness- got the money and signed the receipt.

W. A. Martin, surveyor, gave evidence as to the dispute that led up to the assault.

On the application of Mr Nolan an adjournment was made until Thursday next, to enable the plaintiff to call rebutting evidence.