COUNTY COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VIII, Issue 651, 14 March 1914, Page 5

COUNTY COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY.

ACTION OR DAMAGES. JURY AWARDS £3OO. In the cane of John Snowdon (Dr Bamford) against the Waitomo County Council (Mr Reid, K;C , and Mr Northcroft) for £SOO for alleged negligence, which was he; rd before Mr Justice Cooper and a jury of four, at Hamilton this week, Dr Bamford said the plaintiff. John Snowdon, about H years of age, who brought this action by his guardian, did bo out of an accident on February 6th of last year. The boy was playing, with bis brothers and sisters and two other children, at hide an neek, and in the coarse of their game they, with other children, went to a place either immediatey on or close to the property of Mr T. M. Snowdon, wh»re there was a blacksmith's forge, which had been used in connection with roading operation-", in order that the workmen of the county might sharpen and otherwise repair their tradesmen's tools. The children found this old forge, and started to play rcund about it. They found a small detonator used for discharging a charge of gelignite, and, immediately looking round, discovered other eight or ten, right alongside the old forge. The plaintiff picked up two cartridge cases. He proceeded to clean them out with pieces of fern. He cleaned out two, and then used them as whistles for a few moments.

The boy John Snowdon was cross examined at length by Mr Beid, and said all the boys called out that Maoris had shot at them. Then they fled. He got a iplinter in hia leg and another in hiß mouth.. The one in hia leg had been got otit, but the one that went into his mouth was there J. M. MacMahon, farmer. Te Pura, Ngaruawahia, who was employed by the County Coundi four yeara ago, stone-napping and getting stone from the quarry alternately along with a man named Southern. vlelignite and detonators wern employed in the work. Explosives were kept in Southern s whare, and he had some down where there waa an old forge. Nowhere else Were explo-uves kept. Southern used to car r y them on hia person. Additional explosives were got by both after witness started work. The box he got himself was put in a culvert pipe between the whare and the road. The forge was used for the purpose of sharpening the tools. Tho explosives wore kept there under a shelf of loose limestono. There were some detonators and some gelignite. He also kept detonators in the whiire, and Southern curried some in his waistcoat pocket. Croaa-examineil: He had only done blasting at the quarry face. He never slept at tho forge. Southern was doing all the blasting. Witness did not recollect how long it was back. He did not know his age, his mother knew# To witness belief Southern never worked there after witness left the County Council's emploment. Mr Keid mentioned to His Honour that thin witness was only discovered at the last moment-

He had his pinks arid jumpers several times sharpened by the blacksmith at Te Kuiti, three or four miles of!. He tried to use the forge, but once was enough for him. They got a fire going, but it was tio uhh. The bellows were no good at all. Re-examined by Dr Bamford, witness said ho had soon the stufl, and never thought more about it til! he came to make a statement. Wn>. Baxter, carter, To Awamutu, brother-in-law of the boy'a father, employed by the county, under McCall, in 1910, chiefly spreading metal, said, in reply to Dr Bamford, that when he used to pais the forge it wms used occasionally for sharpening tools by the council's men. He heard explosions in the quarry at that time. He knew there was u drain pipe at the side of the road. Some of the explosives were kept there. Passing on a Sunday, wUnenH and Snowdon shifted Bime gelignite, a coil of fuse, and detonators, found in the drain pipe. Mr Snowdon took them home. Witness used some of the gelignite himself. By Mr Northcroft- The dra n pipe could be seen from the road. If anybody was looking in that direc tion he could net help seeing it. Mr Snowdon had told him that the gelignite was in the drain. He did not remember seeing a biscuit tin. Mr Snowdon took the explosives to hia house. , Mr Northcroft suggested that the explosives had been taken away because they wore dangerous, but witness said ha could not remember where they were put. He got only gelignite from Snowdon as far as he could remember. Ha had some detonators of his own. Owen W. Self, farmer, fe Kuiti, , whose property adjoins Snowdon'a, aaid the old forgo w«h there when he took possession in 1910. I he metalling started about that time. On several occasions when the men, other than Southern and MacMahon, were Working on the road, there was blasting done. James Self, farmer, brother or Inst witneßß, corroborated. Up till August, 1912, there was no blasting. He had been away after that. Riding in one day with the chairman of the County Council, he remarked: "There are some explosives there which are dan gerouß." Cross-examined by Mr Northcroft: The drain pipe «as close to the road, nearer the road than it wus to the bush. It was in the fern and scrub at the side of the road. Mr Reid, in opening for the defence, held that the other side had not made out a case of negligence. Alexander Scholes, chairman of the County Council, in reply to Mr Reid, gave evidence in lupportof that contention The road, he said, had been formed by the Public Works Department, the County afterwards widening

and using blasted rock for metalling bad portions. The Government labourers had a camp at the forge. The Council never erected a forge.

Mr Reid, addressing the jury for the defendants, held thut the accident was not due to detonators negligently left by employees of the County Council. If the Council employed negligent servants tney would have to suffer for that, but there wn < no evidence connecting the Council with the fact that the detonators were left where they were. Dr Bamford, for the plaintiff, said he did not want to appeal to the jury'a sympathy. He admitted that there was mi precise evidence identifying a particular detonator with the Council. The evidence relied upon was circumstantial, but it was strong enough for reasonable conviction. The servants of the Council had no conception of their duty to the public in bundling the explosives. The jury were entitled to draw an inference that the explosives wer° left by one of their servants, and not by the Government's servants ago. Supposing th« forge had been in coud working order it would have been a convenient place for storing explosives. He asked the jury to infer that the detonators had been negligently left by the Council's employee. The claim was for general damage. His Honour, in summing up, Baid the two defences of trespass and contributory negligence had been properly abandoned. The evidence waj not so evenly balanced as to warrant him in withdrawing the case from the jury. Th u y were bound to start the case with the assumption that there were detonators left in the whare, on the top of the bellows, before the County Council had done any blasting work. The inference was that the9e detonators were left by the Government party. There were, however, other circumstances to consider in coming to a conclusion. If the jury were satisfied that MacMuhon and Southern, who were the laut to use the whare, had left detorators there, they were justified in holding that the accident wa<* not due to detonators left there by the Govern mer.t employees. His Honour read over MacMahon's evidence to the jury in full. The detonators had been left near the forge either by the employees of the Council or those of the Government. MacMahon had sworn that either he or Southern, in the same service, left them there. The credibility of his evidence was purely a matter for the jury.

After having been in retirement for two hours, the jury returned viith a written statement, which the foreman handed to the judge with the remark that they had brought in a verdict, if it met with his Honour's acceptance. The judge asked to see the written statement, and, after perusing it, told the foreman that the jury's verdict must not contain an explanation. They must give a verdict straight out.

The fnr?man said the jury bad agreed in finding for the plaintiff. Tne judge said that if they found for the plaintiff, there would be no case against the Government. The case, in that event, would be settled. The jury could not divide the responsibility between the County Council and the Government.

The jury then asked leave to go back, and were asked bv the judge if they were likely to take a long time. The foreman said it was doubtful. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and assessed the damages at £3OO. Leave was given to apply for a fresh trial.