WESTLAND SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 21 June 1920, Page 4

WESTLAND SUPREME COURT

SITTINGS AT HOKITIKA

SATURDAY, June 19th.

(Before His■ Honour Mr Justice Hardman.) CIVIL BUSINESS. CLAIM FOB, DAMAGES. Arthur Herbert King, of Bluff v. A. Hall, Ltd., aiid Hugh CAssidy and A. Hall. "• ' A claim for £2,000 damages. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. Murdoch appeared foir the plaintiff, and Mr Joyce, with hind Afr Hanhan, .|'©r the i ' defendants. • • The following juty of twelvd wto emI panelled J. A. Stoop, William Hall, J. i Myers, John Cameron, H. Rutland, M. T. Marks, John j. Rooney, Ai B. Boyd, R. Whiley, Wm. Robinson, L. Kelly, and F. W. Feddersen. Air W. Robinson was chosen foreman. (Tartly heard the previous day.) The Court resumed at 10 a.m. EVIDENCE CONTINUED.

Walter Douglas deposed he was a farmer, and formerly a coach-driver for Cassidy, and Co. for 12J years. Before that he drove for Mr Heywood in Christchurch. He first drove the feed wagon for twelve months. It was the custom to break the men in by putting them on the feed wagon before driving passenger traffic. On 17th June last he drove a coach over. There were four of Cassidy’s coaches driven over that day. He drove one of Hall’s coaches, at the request of Noel

Pahl, who said he was not very well, and ' it was Pahl’s coach. witness drove. - If Pahl had not requested him to drive his coach witness would not have driven any coacjj that day. Witness gave up his day off for Mr Pahl. On the journey from Ofcira to Arthur’s Pass that day the coach went all right. ’The brakes were in perfect order. . Drove the same coach on the return journey. It was not correct that then coach was going, at an excessive speed down Pegleg hill, whioh is about as steep as any grade on the Gorge. If it c,ame down Pegleg nill at an excessive speed, in his opinion the coach would /oapsize in the creek, which waa very rough. Had no trouble in negotiating the creek that day. It was >the 'roughest creek at the tiifie. Stopped the coach at the foot of the moraine, a quarter of a mile past Pegleg Creek. He pull-

ed up there, as Was the general custom, / to enable a coach that was in front to get a further distance ahead. Witness got off the coach, just to stretch his legs and have a general look round. Had had no trouble with the brakes or gear of the coach. From there on there was a short climb before the descent from the summit was commenced. Had no trouble at the commencement of the descent. Trouble first commenced about half way down the Gorge, about a mile from the of the hill. The coach turned over about 200 yards up the hill from Candy’s hut. The trouble with the coach started about 150 yards above that point. There were no sharp turns to negotiate between these two points. In the last bend before the accident, one of the polers stumbled, but regained his feet, and started the other horses to clear out,; which tried to bolt. He applied both’ feet to the brake, and in the meantime the poler fell again. This caused the coach to bit a rock in the water table, with the right hand wheel. The horse falling, and witness’s help dragged the horses and coach into the right side. It was the off side poler that fell. He pulled them into the bank to try to stop them. If he had not-pulled into the bank, probably all would have been killed. When the wheel hit the rock, it knocked the body of the coach off the fore-carriage. This enabled the king-bolt to come out, and the horses, fore-carriage and witness went away, witness was flung clear about 20 yards ahead. He knew that two of the horses were killed, being found in the creek, having gone over the precipice. After the horses stumbled he did everything he could think Of to save the passengers and coach. He did not know now, anything better that he could liave done. There are five sharp bends from the summit to Candy’s hut. If the coach had been travelling at the pace alleged by the plaintiff’s witnesses, it would have been impossible to get round the bends.To Sir John Findlay.—He has left Cassidy’s employ six months. He had received £5 from Mr Campbell for expenses. Tie had given his evidence in Christchurch. He did not state then that over a. quarter of a mile before the accident the horses were going fast, faster than usual. He did say there was an extra lever on the front, but no one there to use it. He admitted making a statement in Christchurch. He did not tell the manJwho took evidence anything about galloping. He Mad discussed the accident with Mr Cassidy yesterday. He stopped below Pegleg creek to let the other coach get further away. It was then 300 yards away. When he got down he had aTook round to see if all were right, including the brakes. He contradicted Air Reese’s evidence of the coach sweeping round a bend at a

dangerous pace. He denied that he told * a representative in Christchurch that a quarter of a mile before, the accident, the horses were travelling much faster than was . usual. / He did :not know the passengers jumped off. To Mr Joyce.—Witness was asked in Christchurch if the brakes were in perfeot order, and he replied, “ yes.”■When the subpoena was served, £5 10s was handed him as expenses. It was the custom when he got off the coach to have a look round, If he had not pulled the horses into the hill the coach would dave gone over the precipice into the river a couple of hundred feet below. To his Honour.—Had the coach under control when coming down from the sunlmit.

This was the case for the defence. His Honour stated the issues he proposed to place before the jury. MR JOYCE’S ADDRESS.

Mr Joyce, addressing the jury, stated the first issue was to find whose property the coach was. The evidence of Mr Hall showed the owner very conclusively was A. Hall and Coy., Ltd. The second issub asked, was the accident caused by the negligence of the driver, and the third, was the accident due to the defective condition of the plant. He held that in a case where a plaintiff was claiming a substantial amount, his evidence was naturally biased. Counsel referred to evidence for plaintiff at length, principally to that referring to the condition of the brakes; pointing out there was no question of .negligence by

the driver. It was reasonable to assume that the accident occurred owing to an uncontrollable accident to the horses, and that the driver did absolutely the best he could under the He held that the plaintiff had not proved that the driver had been negligent, nor was there any defect in the equipment of the coach or brake, and therefore 4 there was no question of damages. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF. Sir John Findlay, addressing the jury, stated they were the judges of facts. It had been stated that over 20,000 passengers had been carried in twelve months withoat accident, and yet they were asked to believe that the stumbling of one horse was tlie cause of a serious accident. He held it was either a negligent brake or it was negligent driving. The jury had to ask on what side the least self-interests were. Ho claimed that the evidence of Reese, a perfectly disinterested person, was 4 correct in every jSrticular. He dealt at length with the evidence for plaintiff Could they disbelieve tho evidence of fteese, King and Wells in favour of that of the driver, who sought to clear himself of negligence. One of the issues was who was the owner of the coach. He held that the whole question of the limited liability company was a fiction. One share was held by tho wife and tho other 749 shares by Hall, and the whole of the capital was paid up, and everything mortgaged up to the hilt. When they bought a ticket marked Cassidy and Hall did they not take it that they were travelling .with Cassidy and Hall, Dealing with the question of damages, the jury alone were the judges of what should be given to this injured man. They could take Dr. Hogg’s evidence as unchallenged. Did they consider that in view of the injury caused, and the pain endured, that the damages asked were excessive. 1 , j 1 ’ HIS HONOUR’S ADDRESS. His Honour summed up. Their substantial duty was to find whether the result'of the accident was dhe to negligence or neglect. The first question to decide was the ownership of the coach, and Air Hall declared it belonged to Hall and Co.; Ltd. There was nothing improper in Air Hall and his wife in banding themselves together as a private company. If they accepted'Hall’s statement they would answer accordingly. They had to consider whether there had been negligence. Undoubtedly it was an important duty., to/exercise care, and to see that tlie vehicles were in satisfactory order and safe oondition, and to provide a competent driver, who had to show proper care. If they were satisfied that because of neglect or negligence Air King was injured then they had to consider the question of damages. 'lf they considered that the driver allowed the rhorses to get out of control then he was guilty of negligence. Tlie accident itself was prima facie evidence of neglect itself, and in this case he thought it vra> so; but it was quite open for the defendant to come and give an explanation of the cause. It' was quite clear that the one person who could speak with decision was the driver, who had a clear view. They had the reason the driver gave for stopping at Pegleg Creek. Air Reese in part of his evidence corroborated that of the driver as to the actual point where the danger became imminent. The evidence of King, Reese and AVells pointed to excessive speed, while on the other side there was the evidence of the driver, who Was the only man on the outside, who stated every care was shown. If the evidence of the driver was true, then the claim must fail. If the driver exercised his judgment to the best of his ability then he was not guilty of negligence. If they believed that the driver was driving too fast and allowed the coaqh to get out of control, then he was guilty of negligence. On the question of the brakes, the defendants’ evidence was that the brakes were in good order before, and of Mr Boon who, after the accident, found the brakes in" good order. The main thing they had to consider was te conduct of the driver himself. If he was telling the truth then the plaintiff cannot succeed. On the question of damages, if they found there was negligence, then they had to consider the injury that plaintiff had received. The claim was for £2OOO and £594 5s special damages. They should not punish the defendant, however. The plaintiff had undoubtedly suffered serious injury. Dr Hogg estimated the incapacity at 30 per cent. They had to consider the matter from every point of view. He would ask them to consider their verdict. THE JURY’S FINDING.

The jury retired at 12.55 p.m. to consider their verdict, and returned, at three o’clock with the following answers to the issues placed before them: — 1. —Was the coach in which the plaintiff travelled the property of—(a) Hall and Coy., Ltd.; J (b) Cassidy and Co., Ltd.; (c) A. Hall and H. Cassidy. Answer —Yes, to (c). 2. —Was the driver of the coach guilty of negligence? Answer—Yes. '

3. —'Was the accident the result of negligence, in that it was caused by some defects in the coach or its equipment, which the most careful examination of the owner of the coach or his servants could have discovered ?. Answer—Yes. 4. —What damage (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to?

Anwer—£2ooo. POINTS RESERVED.

Mr Joyce formally moved for a nonsuit on the points previously raised, and leave was also given for plaintiff and defendants to move that judgment be entered up for them respectively, argument to be taken at a later date to be fixed, a suggestion being made for it to be taken in Christchurch. AFTERNOON SITTING. A REEFTON ACTION. Elisha Samuel Loekington, of Reefton, v. The King, a petition or right; a claim, for £2OOO damages, arising out of injuries received by the plaintiff while working at or near a crane at Reefton railway station. Mr P. J. O’Regan, with him Mr Lawry appeared for the suppliant;' and Mr Park for the Crown. Mr Patterson appeared to watch the case for the Insurance Company, and the employer. Tile following jury of twelvo was empannelled:—T. W. Duff, Wallace Martin, Frank A. Parker, D. Hc-.ter, R. Stewart, W. E. Richards, R. F. Perham, G‘. Trippner, E. B. Smith, Wm. Rae, O. G. Perry, T. S. Ward. Mr Perham was chosen forman. Mr Park challenged —H. Jones, Wm.

Blackmun, T. Crough Jnr., Wm. ' O’Brien, J. Cahill, T. H. Ingram.

, Air O’Regan challenged—W. A, Shand, F. J. Andrews, F. Winter.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE. - *

Mr O’Regan, addressing the jury, said this was an action for damages caused by personal injury. . An essential necessity was to prove the. injury was caused by negligence, on the part of tho Crown or its agents. The plaintiff was eligible for da pi ages under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Tho most that can be received under that Act is £SOO. In an action for damages negligence has to be prpvod. An injured man cannot claim compensation and damages. The injuries to the young man are very grievious indeed. The supplicant, a youth of 19 was employed by .tlie Reefton Sawmills, Ltd. On the Saturday before the accident, the lad had a minor injury to his hand. Ho did not work on the Monday, and on tlie day of tlie accident ho got a certificate from his doctor, and took it down to his employer’s manager at Reefton railway yards. When got there, the manager, Air Lockington, who was his uncle, was in the act of lowering a load of timber by means of a handcrane. Tliis crane was in the habit of not lowering its load in the place wanted, and it was usual for a second person to push against tiib load' to keep it in’its proper place. When tho lad came away, his uncle called to him to'liold the load, and while lie was doing so, the handle of the crane struck the casing of the crane and the handle flew off, striking the. lad on the head, inflicting serious injuries. It was hold that the' injury was caused through the crane not being in proper working order. His/Honour said they had to prove misfeasance, besides non-feasance. Air O’Regnn claimed to rely primarily that the leaving of the casing of the crane in a dangerous condition was misfeasance.

THE EVIDENCE. Edward Henry Scott deposed he was a medical man residing at Reefton. He had continuously attended the injured lad. On the morning of 26th February, 1919, ho received an urgent call to 'Reefton railway station, and saw the suppliant Lockington, lying in the railway yard, bleeding from a wound in the head, and quite unconscious. Rendered first aid and had, him removed to 'Reefton Hospital: His injury was to the head. There was a most extensive compound fracture of the skull, on the left side. There- were ‘several fractures pressed into the brain. The fracture practically divided the skull into two portions. The brain was evidently lacerated, and accordingly there was hemorrhage. He remained unconscious for eight days. He could not speak at first, and there was some paralysis of the right arm. In view of the injured man having epileptic fits, lie was sent on to Christchurch and X-rays taken. On the 24th July, 1919, decided to operate and removed a portion of the hone off'the brain. As a result of further fitp, again operated; .and removed further .larger portion of the hone away, in January, 1920. Since then there has been a gradual improvement in his condition. On Alarcli Bth, 1920, he reported that lie doubted thpt he would he ever able to earn his own livelihood. His slowness of speech was due to the accident, and would never he recovered fully. His right arm is weak as a result of partial paralysis. It was quite possible that further operations would be necessary. He took it that he was totally permanently incapacitated from any manual labour. His Honour.—-Then he could not play football P

The Doctor.—He was dying to do so, but he would not let him. ■

To Mr Park.—He could not. give any idea when the lad would he able to do any work, if any. He could not say lie would ever work again. It was a marvel hi? Jind Jived. Being a good living boy had assisted him.

Elisha Samuel Lockington deposed he was the suppliant. He met with an accident on the Saturday before the main accident, and jarred his hand. On Tuesday went to see Dr. Conlon, and on Wednesday to the Reefton railway station to hand certificate to his uncle (manager for employer), who was pushing timber from off a wagon. His uncle told him to hold the timber while lie lowered it. Ho did so, and while doing that was injured. Was 19 years of age previous to the accident, and always had good health. Was getting 12s per day wages at the time. TTod often held the load before. His uncle was foreman of Reefton Sawmill, Ltd., and he had always Worked under his orders. To Air Park.—Got a certificate on the Wednesday for being off work. Rode on bicycle to railway station.

Elisha Francis Loekington deposed he was,a sawmiller at Reefton. He was tlie father of the young man. He had used the crane at the Reefton railway station very frequently. Always left the handle on. There was never any intimation from the Railway Department not to leave the handles on. The usual custom by everyone was to leave the .handles on. It was known to the railway officials at the station that the crane was worked that way. The gear wheel covering (produced) was ,off the machine. The covering .had sunk,, the casing resting hard on the covering of the shaft. This drop allowed the corner of the casing to come in contact with the end of the handle, while the handle also struck it in another place also. The handle would never break if it were running clear. If the crane was in proper order the handle would not have struck the casing. The suppliant up to the time of the accident was in good health, getting 12s per day and shortly would have got 14s.

To Mr Park.—Mr Dick knew he was using the crane. Since the crane was erected he was regularly using it at intervals. In a letter to the General Manager of Railways lie said that the cause was a fault in the handle. It was six months after the accident happened that he saw the dent on the casing.

Re-examined.—When he wrote to the General Manager lie only stated what lie had been told. It was only after .lie had examined the casing that lie had foiyid the easing was bent.

To his Honour.—lt was the end of the .handle that broke off that struck the lad. The main part of the handle semained. George Gregory. Loekington deposed he was manager and director of the Reefton Sawmills, Ltd. On February 19th, 1919, he was at Reefton railway station using the crane, for lowering a load of timber to the ground. Had been doing it for 18 months almost daily, three or . four times a week.

To his Honour.—He had already lifted a load of timber off a wagon, and it was suspended when his nephew arrived.

He was'actually pushing the load round when liis nephew arrived, and he asked the boy to hold the load to stop a tendency of the crane to swing hack. Ho then went to the crane Will began 'to lower the load. Tho load is lowered by a brake, tlie handles revolving as the load is lowored. The handle striking the casing, caused portion of it to simp off, and struck his nephew. Tho act his nephew was doing was a work he usually did at the direction of witness. As soon ns ibis nephew came into the yard he 1 mentioned that l)r Conlon had given liijn a certificate for the jar to. his hand. He '■ only used one hand in holding the load, j The boy was about 30 to 35 feet away j from the crane, and the broken part of the handle flew that distance. Examined the handle after the accident and found a small flaw at the place where it broke, and in his opinion it was crystallised. ,

To' his Honour.—lf the casing had been in its proper position the accident would not have happened. The weight ‘ of the casing caused it to sink and rest on the axle. He had pushed it back into position, but as it at once came back I he did not then do it again. The casing had been in that position for a very con- ‘ siderable time. The railway officials never gave instructions how to use the crane. When he first used the crane he took the handles off. He, found that by i leaving the two handles on, it balanced j the'crane, and helped it to run evenly. : The main reason he left it on was because. ■it was dangerous to take it off. He found if it was a heavy load that it took a strong man to hold the, break, and it was a difficult operation to take off tho handle. Since the accident, the handles have been taken off before the load is | lowered. It is more difficult to take the handle off when it is a heavy load, than when the load is a light one. When he discovered the accident the load was two feet above, his nepliew. He stopped the crane and put in the clutch till the lad was removed. After the accident none of the railway officials suggested that the handle should lie taken off. It was some time after the accident before he know what had caused the accident and then lie found the handle had bben broken. The main portion of the handle remained on the crane. He reported the accident to the Company’s indemnifier ! on the day of the accident. To His Honor—-The lad was off. two days owing to an injury and was coining to give him the doctor’s certificate when the accident occurred. The lad had not been at work on the Mg ncl ay or Tuesday and on the Wednesday lie came along when he. asked liipi to lower the load. In some instances; lie had assistance in unloading, and at others lie unloaded alone. He was of opinion that the condition that the handle was in and the fact that it had struck something. He thought that the accident was caused by the crystallisation and the impact on the casing. Was lowering on the low gear. To Mr O’Regan—From the time he saw liis nephew on the ground, the load did not lower two inches before he had stopped the crane. It was the handle on the other side of the crane that he used for lifting and that was in‘a worse condition than the one that broke. On one. occasion when a porter was helping him the porter allowed the load to drop four feet, and the handles went at a terrific speed without breaking, showing centrifugal action had no effect. To Mr Park—Think the porter’s naifie was Eatwell who assisted to lower the load.

Alfred Kenning deposed he was a millhand at Reefton. He bad used the crane frequently. He had taken the handles off since tlie accident, but before he did not. He 'had assistance to push the load round. The railway officials had not suggested that he take the 'handles off. He could not hold the handles off.at the same time. He lifted about'2ooo feet of timber -at a time. Since the accident tlie handles were taken off, but two people had to assist. After the accident he saw a flaw in the other handle, and pointed it out to tlie stationmnster. Since the accident they had to sign for the handles, and are supposed to take them off. He .had noticed that the handle pame in contact with the casing. To Air Park.—The handle struck the casing when rising the Joad, but he did not remember it striking when lowering. George E. 1 A. Hubbard deposed he was a blacksmith at Reefton. He remembered the day of the accident.’ About 5,30 p.m. inspected the handle of the crane that was broken. He did not feel certain that the handle (produced) was the same one. At the time of inspection he considered it was quite crystallised, and that there was a slight flaw on the inside. Being left outside in the rain would tend to crystallise. In his opinion' the cause of the break was through being crystallised, having a slight flaw, and having struck the casing. Annealing would have stopped crystallisation. He had worked the crane himself. He could not take the handle oft - if he worked the crane by himself. ‘ It. was the general practice,to leave the handles on.

To Mr Park.—The flaw is not .as distinct now ns when he first saw it.

George Alexander Buchan deposed he was an engineer at Reefton. For 17' years lie had been employed by the Consolidated Goldfields. He examined the crane. He found the casing had dropped out of its place and there was evidence of the handle having struck the casing. The casing should have been ( kept in place. The act of the handle striking the casing would cause it to be likely to brake. It would be dangerous to remove the handle with a load on. If iron is annealed it is not so likely to snap from a blow. To Mr Park.—ln his opinion he would not say the broken handle was crystallised. Walter Wilby disposed lie was an engineer in- charge of Reefton electric light. He knew the crane at the railway station. He had taken the handle off when lowering, but he discontinued it as it was a dangerous operation. The cause of the accident was the striking of the handle on the casing. This would, not have occurred if the easing was in its proper position, properly stayed and bolted up. The gearing of the crane was 41 to 1, of handle and drum. He thought if tlie Inspector of Machinery saw the easing in his (witness’s) works, he would at once order that it be placed in proper order. Tlib Court adjourned at 0.5 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m. EVENING SITTING. Walter Wilby, cross-examined by Mr Park.—He had used the crane some 20 times in the last couple of years. He I examined the crane on Thursday last. ]

J He found tho handle was touching tho casing. Since the accident he had taken off the handle before lowering the load.

It was safer to liave tho handles fastened on than to take them off, absolutely. It was hard to see any sign of a flaw in the broken handle now after so much time

had elapsed since it was broken. Jf the handle came off the spindle a, little it would be more likely to strike the casing harder. To Mr o’Regan.—The handle would strike tho casing as tho latter was in the position it Jins been, when in the low gear.

This was the case for the plaintiff. CASE FOR DEFENCE.

Mr Park, in opening for the defence, said lie would lead evidence to prove that that given for the plaintiff was thoroughly, unreliable. He ilield that it was quite obvious 'that the handle was never intended to be left on when lowering the load. ' 1

At this stage, Mr O’Regan said 1 o would' withdraw any claim to crystallisation, and the flaw in the handle. Ho would leave his whole case on the question of the faulty casing. Ai r Park, continuing, said the whole question now lay in whether tho handle should have been removed or not.

George Miller deposed he was the mechanical engineer of the. State Mines. The crane was very well constructed. Tlie 'handle should be taken off in lowering, no provision being made for fastening them on, and they were liable to fly off from centrifugal force. He could not detect any flaw in the broken handle. AVith a four-ton load two men should work it.

To Air O’Regan.—lf the handle had | fallen off it would not .have been safe j to have been near it. If he had been in | charge of the crane he would have in- ' sisted that the handle were taken 'iff. The casing should have been securely strapped so .that'it could not be shifted ' from its proper position. Consider that } the break took place almost instantanc-'| ously. If the handle struck the casing it would have assisted in the break! o ;; of the Jmndle. To Air Park.—He could not say when the dent was made. | To his Honour.—He thought. Le handle must have struck some object. AVilliani James Watson deposed he bus ! a locomotive engineer at GreynimirJi. ! He had examined the crane handle, the broken portion on the day of the accident. He believed the cause ' of the break was the revolving of the [ handle on the axle with great force onus- ! ing centrifugal action and straightening J out, striking the gear case in so doing.tj Tn working the crane, the handles weio j for lifting the load, and the brake was i for lowering the load. No crane handles in the railway service had fixed hairves'. •

,To Air O’Regan.—The crane was under the control of the maintenance branch. It would bo difficult for one mail to work the'crane by himself. He wn Id insist that the handle be taken off. He was of opinion that centrifugal force w as responsible for the break. If lie i::ii >v the easing was sagging he would immeriiately have it fixed in its proper posn.i m. John William Dick deposed lie was stationmaster at Reefton. He heard Mr George Lockington state lie was of cp'iiion the accident was caused by vibration, and reported accordingly. Allowed 450 feet of timber to tlie ton. 'llie piece of the handle flew 30 or 40 yards. Young Lockington was about 25 to M) feet away. It was always understood that the handles were to be taken off the crane when lowering the load, and aitei the ac'eident-iie saw that it was done.

To Air O’Regan—lnstructions to taka the handles off were given after the accident. He had not seen’ the crane worked with the handles on. He die not know tlie casing was loose. He gave instructions for the taking off o r the handles.

Robert Nelson deposed he was foreman of railway works at Greymoutli. Saw the crane a. few' weeks before tho accident. It was in good order. He could not say what was the cause ;. f the break. In all his experience lie had never seen a handle left on the Crane when being lowered. Saw' no marks on the casing before the accident. Had not seen the casing loose.

To Mr liawry—Found nothing wrong with the crane when he examined. Had seen dents on the casing since tlie accident. He did not see any marks on tlie casing when he examined the crane in January 1919. He would be Surprised to know the marks were on the casing when he examined it in January 1919. Herbert ' Arthur Smith deposed ho was a blacksmith employed by the Railway Department. He had examined the handle. There was no sign of a flaw. It was a good piece of rteel. He attributed the break to the high velocity at which the handle was travelling. On a- crane, of that type the handles should he removed when low ering, as they were liable to fly • df. Joseph Burn deposed he was a carter of Iknmatua. He remembered the accident. He saw the load being lowered. It was going down fairly steady. He operated a crane at iknmatua. '’■'lev usually took the handles off, when two men were working it. Took the ‘handles off at Reef ton when he worked 't there. If he left them on he took the risk.

To Mr O’Regan—lf lie was work ng it on his own ho would leave the handles on as it would! be very difficult for one man to take off the handles. It wornd be correct to say the load was lowered in the usual manner. ITe noticed 1 hat the handle used to chafe against fie easing. After the accident p»r(> of the handle was still on the crane. He thought the sliglit flaw in the handle and the hitting of the casing 'tamed the accident.

David Rosser deposed lie was a. driver at Reef ton. He saw Loekington lowering his load. It seemed to be g.oiug slow. He could not be certain.

William F. G. Puilin deposed he was engaged in the railway works aa fitter. He considered the handle w*a« broken by centrifugal force. It must, have been going at a very fair speed to go 90 feet. That the mark on the casing was caused by the handle when it was straightening out. Tlie break was from the inside, outwards. He never allowed his man to lower the crane without taking off tlie handle. To Mr O’Regan—After the accident saw the casing was slightly slack. Tlie burring at the eye was caused by it bearing on the shaft. The stay had the weight of the casing. It was stayed but. tlie nut had got loose. Re-examined—The sagging had no effect on the breaking. Henry Thomas Crumpton deposed liewas working at the electric power house Reef ton. He was driving a team of , \

horses at the time of the accident. Saw George Lockington lowering the load. The timber was going slow but the handles were going fast. To Mr Lawry—-Saw the casing that day. It was marked as now. It had the appearance of drooping. Satv the casing was resting on the spindle. If the casing had been in the proper posi ■ tion the handle would not have struck it. Had used the crane, but never took the handles off. Peter McKenzie, deposed he was In specter of Machinery. He saw the broken handle in Mr Mellor’s office. Witness said it was a clean break; that it was steel, that it was not crystallied. The break must have occurred from the inside and was due to centrifugal force. If the load was lowering at the rate of 1 foot per second, it would mean the spindle of the handle would be going,3o revolutions per second, and the eml of the handle 21.0 feet per second. If the load was lowering at two feet per second it would I. o more than breaking point. In his opinion it got a knock that was the finishing touch. These handles were not intended to be left on when lowering the load. The handle must have been travelling at a great pace to travel 90 feet.

To Mr o’ltegan—The centrifugal action could account for the break, but lie would not say that alone was tne cause. The casing should not be loosi; it should be firmly fixed. He knew the suppliant and he was to have gone shortly up for examination at the time of the accident.

This closed the evidence for the defence. I*

COUNSEL’S ADDRESSES,

Mr Park addressing tlie jury claimed that the suppliant was not an employee of the Reefton Sawmills Ltd., at the time of the accident, because .at tin time lie was off work owing to a minor injury from the Saturday and only gave a hand to hold the, load k of the crane at the unfortunate time that the accident occurred. Ho held that tho handle of the crane should have been removed as was intended by the maker and that it was conclusively promt! that the handle broke as the result of centrifugal force; that if the handle dia strike the casing, that centrifugal e had already caused the breakage. Mr O’Rogan addressing the jury said the relation of master and servant still existed at the time of the accident, pointing out that the accident insurance company had recognised the accident. He held the cause of .e accident was the contact of the handle with the casing, and pointed out that it was agreed by witnesses' on botli sides that the casing should not have been allowed to remain in the loose condition that it was at the time of tho accident. He pointed out the grave injuries that had been received by Jicj suppliant, and concluded by pointing out that the claim was for £2,000. The Court then adjourned” at 1 T.*”> p.m., until Monday morning.

MONDAY, JUNE' 21st. His Honor took his seat at 9.30 a.in. Mr Park asked his Honor to put a specml issue to the jury basing his application on a decision quoted. His Honor thought the best course would ho to ask the jury to consider whether it was the duty of the railway department to see that the crane was in proper order. HIS HONOR SUMS UP. His Honor summed up. He read tho issues be proposed to place before tile jury. His Honor said this was -a case of some importance. The action was based on negligence, arising out of an accident to a crane, whereby the sup- | pliant was injured. It was the dutv ; of tlie Railway Department to see t‘>* | crane was in proper order. Tlie sup- | plaint claims the handle snapped bei cause it came into contact with: ihe casing. If they decided so, they had tc ! consider if the Railway Department | showed negligence in allowing the cr.r----i ing to be struck. They had to consider whether the condition of the. handle and casing was such that it should have had the attention of the railway officials. Conned ing that they came fo tlie conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the Department, they had "to consider if the suppliant knew of the risk, did he exempt the department from liability or agreed to take tlie risk. If they found the suppliant did not know of the risk, they had to consider if Mr Loekington (the undo) was guilty of negligence. This was rn (important aspect of the case. Was Mr Loekington negligent in leaving m the handles when lowering the load. Mr Trilby bad stated that anyone using the crane with tlie handles should have realised the danger. It was Mr Looking ton's business to know that the working of the crane was dangerous ot hot. They may find the Crown guilty

of negligence and that/Mr Locking:- 'in was guilty of negligence, then they had to find which negligence was responsible for the accident. He felt that could not b© denied. If they decided that the Railway Department were the guilty party, there was the question of damages. They might think that ihe amount claimed was huge, . what 1 hey had t« do was to consider what were reasonable damages. They must not consider the punishment of the Railway Department. They could consider that £2,000 was an exhorbitant sum. They had to deal with the matter reasonablv. Would they please retire and consider their verdict. ' ■

THE JURY’S FINDINGS. The Jury retired at 1015. The jury returned at 2.15 p.m with the following replies to the issues :

I.—'-Was the suppliant at the time of the accident happened actually engaged as a servant of the Reefton .Sawmills, Ltd., in performing work for and;on behalf of the Reefton Sawmills, Ltd? Answer—Yes.

2.—Did the suppliant, when lie undertook to work near the crane know of and appreciate fully the risk that he was taking, and did ho agree to take such risk himself? Answer—No.

3.-—Was it the custom of the Railway Department to make a charge for the use of the crane ? Answer-—Yes.

4 .—Did the handle break and so cause injury to the suppliant by reason of some defect which the officers of the Crown could not have discovered by the exercise of reasonable care? Answer—Yes.

s.—Were the officers of the Railway Department guilty of negligence in allowing the crane to be used when it was in a defective and dangerous condition, the gear casing being so much out of place that the crane handle struck the casing and broke, thereby causing injury to the suppliant ? • Answer—Yes.

6.—Was the injury to the supplicant caused by the negligence of the supplicant’s uncle, in that when lowering a load he failed to remove the crane handle? Answer—Yes.

7j— If the officers of the Railway Department jvere guilty of negligence and the supplicant’s uncle was also guilty of negligence, were they equally to blame for tho injury sustained by the supplicant ?

Answer—No, B.—lf the answer to issue No. 7 is “No,” then:—

(a) -Was the negligence of the officers of the railway department the direct cause of the injury sustained * by supplicant? Answer —No. (b) Was the negligence of the supplicant’s uncle the direct eause ofthe injury sustained by the supplicant ? Answer—Yes. 9.—What damages (if any) is the sup-, plicant entitled to?

No answer. The jury added a recommendation:— “ That the jury add that the Department be advised to put up notices at each crane respecting the danger of working same, and full instructions how to work the crane be also'erected.”

Mr Park asked for judgment to be entered up in favour of the Department.. His Honour_entered up judgment for defendants with costs on the highest scale, witnesses’ allowances and disbursements to be allowed by registrar. Mr O’Regan asked for leave to move for a new trial.

His Honour granted reserve leave to move for a new trial, for fourteen days. His Honour thanked the jury for their attention, and for their recommendation, which would be duly forwarded on to tho Rail way Department. They were then discharged from further attendance.