THE VEEDICT OF THE JURY.

Auckland Star, Volume IX, Issue 2516, 17 April 1878, Page 2

THE VEEDICT OF THE JURY.

His Honor summed up the evidence with great care, quoting from opinions of Lord Slansfield and other high authorities in respect of the relative duties of carriers of passengers and passengers themselves. The former were bound to exercise more than ordinary care for human safety, and were also responsible for the negligence of their servants. After going minutely through the facts produced by the seventeen witnesses, his Honor directed the jury in the matter of dealing, according to their judgment, with the issues. The jury retired at a quarter to five, and at a quarter-past five o'clock the foreman intimated his doubts as to the unanimity of the whole of the jury on a verdict. At eight o'clock the jury returned without a unanimous agreement, eight being of one opinion and four of another opinion. They again retired, and shortly after ten o'clock the foreman informed his Honor that the jury were still divided ; although on some of the issues they had agreed : nine of the jurymen were for awarding no sum to plaintiff, whilst three were for awarding a certain sum.

The following were the findings on the essential issues :—

2. Did the defendants so negligently and unskilfully conduct themselves in carrying and landing the plaintiff at Newcastle aforesaid, that the plaintiff was thereby injured and woudded as alleged ?—Foreman : Yes; neglect on the part of the defendants.

3. Did the plaintiff on his part, and ■while being so carried and landed, exercise and take reasonable and ordinary care not to incur, and by the exercise of such care to avoid, the happening of any injury to himself ?—Foreman : Nine say no ; three say yes. 4. Was the injury complained of caused by the failure of the plaintiff to exercise such care as in the third issue mentioned ?■ - Foreman : Nine say yes; three say no. 5. What sum, if any, as damages, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendants in this action ?—Foreman : Nine jurymen were for awarding the plaintiff nothing, and three thought he should get something.. His Honor held that practically this was a judgment for defendants ; and judgment was therefore given for defendants. The Court was then adjourned sine die.