APPEAL COURT
vßy Telegraph—Press Association).
WELLINGTON, October 17
Continuing his argument in the Storey appeal c-a.se this morning, Mr Cornish submitted that although there were many decisions to- the effect that contributory negligence was no defence to a charge of manslaughter in New Zealand, yet the doctrine was not so far many entrenched in our jurisprudence that it could not l>e displaced, if there were operative negligence on the part of person indicated, and operative negligence on the part of the person killed. Then, one negligence erased the other. It was not sufficient for the Crown to prove that there was a collision.
It had also to be established that it was that' collision which determined Cook’s course after the impact. Whether the collision caused the ik"* whether death was the indirect consequence of the collision, was a material point and should have been left to the jury. Mr Cornish contended that unless the thing subsequently was clearly determined by the thing precedent, it could not be regarded as a consequence. Consequently the evidence as to matters subsequent to- the impact should have been permitted to have been introduced.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19301017.2.40
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 17 October 1930, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
189APPEAL COURT Hokitika Guardian, 17 October 1930, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in