DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3853, 9 July 1891, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

(Beforo His Honor District Judge Eobinson.) SPACEMAN V. WAIRARAPA NOKTH COUNTY COUNCIL. WEDNESDAY. On the Court resuming— Mr Bremner, continuing his evidence, said there wero more dangorous places on the MastertonEketahuna road than at the scene of the accident. By the jury : He did not remember complaints haying been made about the dangerous state of the road in question. Thomas Mackay, sworn, stated he knew the road in ijuestion, and con ■ sidered it safe under ordinary circumstances. By Mr Pownall: I would not call it a particularly safe road if a train was passing. It would depeud upon the horses. Mr Bremner, re-called, stated that he did not know of any fences erected within the County for protective purposes. William Day, settler, deposed that he frequently travelled oyer the road, but did not consider it dangerous in itself. William Keeble deposed to having brought Spackman's team to town after the accident. He did not consider the road safe. It would be difficult 10 turn the waggon this side ot the bridge, This was the case for the defendants. Counsel having addressed the iury at considerable length on both sides, Mr Beard maintained that damages could not be awarded to the lather and mother of the deceased. His Honor then directed tbo jury, and submitted the various issues. After ut short retirement the jtir found as follows: Was the road reasonably safe for the traffic it was intended for ?—No. If it was not, do the jury find that there was any negligence on the part of the defendants ?—Yes. Was the surface of the roads in good repair '?— Yes. Were the horses that wore driven b> the deceased frightened by the railway train ? —Yes. Did tiiey then, being so frightened, go over the embankment ol tho road, a ad wa3 tho death of the deceased

caused by their 80 going oyer ?—Yes. Was the death the result of pure accident without fault on either side ?—No.

Or was it due to any failure of the defendants to keep the road reasonably safe for traffic?--Yes.

Was there contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, that is, did he fail to use ordinary care ?—No. Is the plaintiff entitled to any compensation, if so, how much, and how to be apportioned ?—Yes, £2OO, to be apportioned as follows: Mrs Spackman, £SO; Jane Eliza Spackroan, £ls; Walter Leonard, £10; Frederick Charles, £ls; Rupert Howard, £2O; Ada Ellen, £25; Frank Norman, £3O; Muriel Ethel, £35. His Honor gave judgment in accordance with the fiuding, with costs, £l9 18s. Mr Beard gave notice of appeal.