BIG SUM CLAIMED

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 216, 12 August 1937, Page 2

BIG SUM CLAIMED

RETRIAL OF CASE. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. Interrupted when the previous hearing was nearing tho end, owing to the discovery, that a member of the jury was a son-in-law of one of the principal witnesses (who was a nephew of plaintiff), the case in which £2500 general and £255 special damages were claimed was brought on for retrial before His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Aliehael Myers, and another jury in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North yesterday. Plaintiff is Alls Elizabeth Crowther, aged 72, wife of Daniel Crowther, an attendant, of Wellington. Defendants are Leicester George Harris, service car proprietor, of Dannevirke, Roy Mervyn Blackford, a driver, of Dannevirko and Airs Grace Alarion Harris, of Dannevirke (the registered owner of the car involved in the accident to plaintiff as a pedestrian. Air 0. C. Alnzengarb (Wellington), with him AH L. G. H. Sinclair, appeared for plaintiff, and Air lan Macarthur (Wellington) for defendants. The jury were empanelled as follow: Messrs W. A. Penman (foreman), B. Albert, C. Grover, K. J. Kjnr, E. Petersen, W. Evre, A. Neyland. R. G. Fowles', S. Wintcrburn, R. E. Bradley, N. Johansen and E. AVilson. Plaintiff, in her statement of claim, alleged that, at 10.35 a.m., in September last, she was crossing Alain Street towards the Post Office when the defendant, Blackford, in the employ of either or both of the other defendants, allegedly negligently managed a car he was driving and ran into plaintiff. She said that she had been totally disabled in consequence of the accident, and would remain permanently so. Defendants denied the allegations of negligence, and alleged that Airs Crowther had failed to exercise due care and attention, and had failed to keep a proper look-out. Further, if any negligence was proved against the driver of the car, contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff was alleged. Depositions of evidence given by plaintiff from her sick-bed in AVellington were read, and Dr. E. C. Barnett gave evidence as to plaintiff’s condition.

Evidence was also given by Daniel Crowther, caretaker of the National Art Gallery, AVellington, and husband of plaintiff; and by William James, a fanner, of Palmerston North, a nephew of plaintiff. Following tho close of plaintiff’s case, Mr Alaearthur moved for judgment for defendants on the ground that plaintiff’s own case established contributory negligence on her part. Counsel suggested, alternatively, that plaintiff should be non-suited oil the same ground. Though he reserved leave for its later renewal, His Honour provisionally overruled the application. Evidence was given for the defence by H. J. Smith, City Council traffic manager; Roy Afervyn Blackford, hairdresser, of Hamilton, and formerly relieving service drive!; also by three passengers in the latter’s car, these being Eric Alorgan (Napier), Airs Berry (Dannovirkp), and Airs Gibbs (Wood vi lie). This concluded the evidence, and both counsel then addressed the Court, tho tliree following issues being placed before the jury liv His Honour: (1) Was the car driver negligent?- (2) AVas Mrs Crowther negligent? (3) Damages ? After a retirement of two hours the jury answered tho questions by declaring the car driver negligent and Mrs Crowther not so. Tile damages were assessed at £llsO general and £256 Us 9d special damages—a total of £1406 11s 9d.

Air Alazcngarb asked for judgment for plaintiff and Mr Alaearthur renewed his application for judgment for defendant or for a non-suit. Both motions wero reserved for further consideration in AA’ellington along with a request, if thought necessary, for a new trial.