COURT NEWS.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 November 1928, Page 6

COURT NEWS.

DENTIST SUED. FOR, ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE. (,By Telegraph—Per Press Association.) HAMILTON, Nov. 13. An unusual claim against a dentist for £l2l IDs 6d for an operation allegedly negligently performed was heard at Hamilton before Magistrate Wilson to-day. The plaintiff, Mrs, Janet Lvburn, sued H. W. Frost, Ltd., whose employee J. E. Kirkland, performed the operation. Kirkland had informed fhe plaintiff, who desired a new denture, that a Hup of skin on the lower jaw should be remove,d. After the operation blood gushed from the mouth of plaintiff, who alleged Dr Douglas was called in by Kirkland. He asked: “What have you been doing? Have you ever seen an artery cut like this?” Dr Douglas stitched the wound. Later Kirkland removed the stitches. A further operation was required, because of. the gun and cheek adhering. She was in the hospital seven days. Two doctors gave -evidence in support of plaintiff. The case was adjourned.

COMPENSATION CLAIM. LEVEL CROSSING FATALITY. „ AUCKLAND. Nov. 13. A railway accident at Argyle Street level crossing between Kingsland and Morningside, on December 24th last, |>v which Mrs Ethel Brittain lost belli fe, and her son George, aged three, sustained a severe injury, was the subject of a suit for compensation in the Supreme Court. The action was brought in the form of a Petition ot Right.' George Samuel Brittain, husband of deceased, sued on behalf of himself and his two children—Cyril, aged four, and George, aged three, for £2OO compensation. George Brittain, through his father as guardian ad liten, sued for £750, with resnect to his personal injuries, and G. S. Brittain also claimed £SO for medical expenseincurred.

The petition contained allegations of inadequacy of the nreenutions for the safety of the public at the crossing, and failure to give sufficient warnings of the approach of the train. The defence filed bv the Crown was a general denial of the statements in tlio it-mn, with an alternative allegation of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, in not keeping a sufficient lookout. At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr .Justice Blair said lie could not sec that there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the Railway Department. lie could form no other conclusion than that Mrs Brittain could have seen the train approaching had she looked in its direction. The train was travelling at an ordinary speed, slowing down on its approach to Morningside Station and its whistle was sounded. It had been established that the crossing was dangerous, but, of course, all crossings wore dangerous. It was for the supplicants to prove ‘negligence oil the part of the Railway Department, and, in the absence of that proof, he considered it his duty to withdraw the case from the jury. The jury was accordingly discharged and judgment was entered for the Crown, with costs. RETRIAL EFFUSED. AUCKLAND, Nov. 13. Leave to apply to the Court of Appeal for a new trial in the case ot Francis James Carroll, one of the two ex-policemen convicted cm a charge of arson in connection with an explosion and fire on August 29th at Carroll’s shop in Napier Street, was refused by Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court.

The contention on behalf of the prisoner was that there was no evidence to justify the verdict of arson against him, and no proof that he committed the crime, or that ho counselled, aide.! or abetted, its committal.

The judge said the only possible conclusion from the facts was that Carroll intended the destruction of the premises and contents by fire and that his presence at and encouragement ot the removal of the goods from the shop amounted to aiding and abetting in the commission of the offence.

SEAMEN FINED. AUCKLAND, Nov. 13. Eight seamen and seven firemen of tlie steamer Port Darwin were charged at the Police Court with disobeying a lawful order given by the master on November I.oth, when the vessel Avas between NeAv Plymouth and Auckland. Counsel for the company said that on the way from Timaru to New Plymouth, the coal in the fore bunker had become heated. The waterside Avorkers at Ncav Plymouth refused to shift the heated coal unless paid higher Avages on account of the fumes and heat. Then Avhen the ship Avent to sea the firemen and sailors Avere asked to shift it. and also refused the duty, making it necessary for officers and noprentices to do the work. He believed coercion had been brought to bear on the sailors. As the ship was sailing to-morroAV, he asked that the men should not be imprisoned. Counsel for the men said the affair originated some months ago. The chief engineer had promised the men the order A\-ould not he giVen. Hoavover, lie could do nothing but plead guilty. Trimmers would liua'c done the Avork if paid the same Avages as the Avatersiders. “If there is one thing to he strictly obserA-ed, it is the order of officers on ships at sea,” remarked Mr Hunt, S.M., as he fined the trimmers tAvo days’ pay, and the sailors one day.