£2000 DAMAGES.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 May 1924, Page 2

£2OOO DAMAGES.

WCIIO OF TAIIIAI’E TP.AGHDY. j i r„ v tki.ko itAiui —nut rititss assoiuat.on.J | TAIHABE, May 2S. j An echo of what is known as the Tailiape murder ease, was beard m the Supreme Court to-day. when Mrs Run Gemmeil claimed £SOOO damages from Anthony M.oghan, who is serving long sentence, for causing the death of plaintiff's husband. It will be recalled I hat Geminell was found dead on Moghau’s farm, alter a party had indulged in a big drinking bout at New Year. Meghan was charged with the murder, and louml guilty of manslaughter. _ l>h’,jntili', in to-da.v’s action, said she was married in 1920, when 19 years oT age. Her husband bad always suppiled her with his earnings, and with Ihe exception of a period of months, ■ when he was ill gaol, they had lived happily together. There were two children of the marriage, but only was alive.

Cross examined bv Air A) iiford, plaintiff admitted having sought separation orders from her husband, but she said the separation only lasted a lew days. She bad bad to obtain charitable aid for about tour months, while Gemmeil was in gaol, on different occasions.

His Honour, summing up, said the question was to wliat extent Gemmeil supported bis wife, and what her future prospects were. It was envious, from plaintiff’s evidence, that she liaii either forgotten a lot. or was not telling the truth. Probably her ill health and the trouble she had passed >.trough, were responsible for contradiclorv statements she had made. Counsel on either side took extreme views, and the (ruth, no doubt, lay between. The jury bail to consider the evidence, and the reasonable prospect- in Geuinn'll’s life, and to say uli:A* they thought was a fair sum tr award the widow and child for the loss of their husband and father. It. was admitted that they sustained some loss, and the jury was to say how much. Having arrived at that conelusion, then the jury was to indicate how the amount was to be divided as between the widow and the child. The jury returned a verdict awarded L'2ooo damages, £750 „f which was awarded to the widow, and £1259 to the child.

Tfis Honour ordered that the child's share he paid to the Public Trustee for administration, on terms to be arranged later.