DISTRICT COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5765, 20 September 1879, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Friday, September 10. (Before his Honor Judge Mansford.) HEDGES V. THE CORPORATION. Mr. Ollivier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers for the City Council. The following jury were empannelled : Messrs. W. H, Eyre (foreman), J. J. Flyger, F. Howe, and A. Lockie. The particulars of this case are well known, having been twice before the Court. J, he facta may be briefly recapitulated as follows : On the 20th of December last the plaintiff slipped from the footpath on to the road at the corner of St. Peter’s Church. Some alterations having been made in the road, she lost her footing, and fell heavily to the ground, breaking her arm and collar-bone. The accident being attributable to the contractor not having put up lights, she brought an action m the District Court, and recovered damages. The Corporation solicitor then applied for a rehearing of the case, which was granted. _ On the case coming forward a second time, through some mistake Mr. Travers was not present, and judgment was again given m her favor. Afterwards the matter was arranged to be settled to a certain extent, but was not, hence the present action, the claim being for £147 Os. 2d' After witnesses had been again heard, the jury found for plaintiff, and assessed the damages at £65 and costs. JOSEPH NATHAN AND CO. V. SIMPSON AND CAM BHON. This was a claim for £IBO. It was ordered to stand over to the next sitting of the Court, on the 17th October. JOHNSON AND CO. V. PI9COB AND CO. This was a claim for £135 2s, Cd. The following jury were sworn in ; —Messrs. W. H. Hare (forema.nl, Flyger, Howe and Lockie. Mr. Bell appeared for the plaintiffs, and as there was no appearance of the defendants, judgment was given for the full amount claimed. WEBBER V. THE NATIONAL BANK. Mr. Ollivier for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brandon, jun., for the defendants. The action was brought to recover the sura of £2OO, damages for injury sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the bank having dishonored a cheque after promising a certain overdraft. The defence was that there were not sufficient funds belonging to the plaintiff in the bank to meet the cheque when it was presented ; and further, that no overdraft as set forth bad been promised. Evidence having been given for and against, the jury, after a short retirement, found for the plaintiff, and awarded £2O damages. _ Mr. Brandon said he should give notice of appeal, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Mr. Ollivier said there was no such ground in the District Court rules. The plaintiff might appeal on the ground that the damages were particularly small. Tho Judge, after looking through the Act, asked Mr. Brandon if he intended to make any motion at once. Mr. Brandon replied in the negative. There would be time to make tho appeal at the next sitting of the Court. It was resolved that the amount of coats should he agreed upon at a future date. The Court then adjourned for three weeks.