MITCHELL v. CITY COUNCIL.

NZ Truth, Issue 75, 24 November 1906, Page 3

MITCHELL v. CITY COUNCIL.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— Will you please . allow me j space to ?rive a little public explanation from my point of view m the case for compensation for injuries sustained m Mitchell v. Wellington Oity Council. I may state that a short , letter bearing on tllis matter which I left with the Editor of the "Evening Post," last Wednesday morning has not appeared. Therefore, I feel an, injustioe may lie done me if ■denied this privilege. First I wish, to say, Sir, m the "Post" and "•Times" report of Dr. McArthur's reserved judgment of the above-men-tioned case, it will be noticed that it states : "The plaintiff admitted a •lifebt \ms tihere. " This is very misleading, and not fair or, just to me. What I admitted was that there was a light some distance from the pole, which was placed to guard quite a separate danger altogether, and "such light was no protection" what-' ever to any one going m the same direction as I was, to prevent such an accident that befell me. In addition to my evidence some five or six uninterested, respectable witnesses stated m their evidence they saw no lip-ht on or near the pole. Ample proof oan be got. to prove that quite a number of persons of all ages, fell over one or the other of these poles m Elizabeth-street during the progress of this work which proves they were very imperfectly lighted at times. The defence, however, set Up by the City Council was that there was no pole lyinp there at the time of the accident. This was sworn to by six or seven of the Council employees,, who each said they erected this pole on Friday the 26th January, the day before I met with the accident. My solicitor after applied to call rebutting evidence, stating we could produce a photograph of the men at work erecting' this very pole on the Monday, the 29 January, with the positive proof that the photograph was taken on the 201/h • but this application was not allowed by Dr. McArthur. Through there being such a contrast m the evidence I would like to refer to the proof obtainable of these photographs being taken on Monday, the 29th January, Sir. In short, a gentleman residing close by the place m Elizabeth-street, who is one of the staff of the Bank of New South Wales, states he took three photographs during the day, of the men working on that Monday, the 529 th January and why he is so positive over the date is that it was on the first da^ of the commencement of his holidays, which he says can be proved by the books of his bank, and also referred me to the. "Evening Post" oi that date, saying-, "You will see my name among the passenger list to Lyttelton by the Mararoa the same night, and through the courtesy of Mr Gibbons, head reporter of the "Evenino- Post" who looked un that date for me m his office, I was then able to see for myself this same gentleman's name among the' passenger list as he had stated. Besides, as he says, if it had not been on his holiday he would have been away to business before nine o'clock that mornine-. and to further prove the time, Dr. Elliott's trap appears m this photo where the men are erecting this particular pole, and Dr. Elliott told me he was there oil '

the 29th, perhaps between 10 a.m. and noon, attending Captam Cox, who was then laid up with a broken ankle. Captain Cox, his wife and daughter -gave evidence on my behalf, as the pole m question was then lying close m front of his window. None, of mine, or any witness 1 evidence, has been published, which I consider m suoh an important case to the public is a very great injustice, hence my i troubling you, Sir, and must thank you m anticipation.— l am, <fee.,

THOMAS MITCHELL' Wellingitoh, Nov. 16, '06.