SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 214, 10 September 1896, Page 5

SUPRE ME COURT.

yESTEEDAr. jjT BANCO. ■>T \. ffon^MrJ« tic 9 Cono!ly'' (B efore SiaH following caaea were claim, and °° yijlj ilc Cormick t P^'S 5i the decision of the ••*" "V tf t^ilvie (appellant) v. H. Irian' 0* Wf FBmby (respondent), fte^riSi of Mr Parr, wbo stated a tie »PP heS been arrived at. element baa «" x the case Arapera plaintiff, «• ba de i lW eci *0 %SrU the District Land <Kfi grained .from register., Costs were allowed on the ; ing **. *,«ith £10 10s sllowance for one | Mr'Colbeck. instructed by | SiaandDay, appeared for P Ia 1Q - Slaw"

t>£ _ - t he CiTT COCSCiu-Mr S3ESSl O ved for a new trial, on Cotter.m°! ecll tha verd i C b of the ** ffnot jo'tified by the evidence. TTitl fwdwwned at the Salt) Water Sh£«^ The special jury of KSL«d the ease returned a Terd.cn KXifi for £125 damages. Mr Cotter intended that even assuming that SSSft*swim and that'- 9 alter' made br tbe City Council wsre f ■!« here was no ..gleet proved on Kof ri» Corporation which resulted • TLth of the boy. He maintained &%£ been adduced which Stifled the jary in comm? to the conSntial! the existence of the platform Sdtt boy-a death. Even if .there had Li negligence in the construction of the yform, i» waa for tbe plaintiffs to show U auch negligence was the cause of iali Mr Cotter quoted the case of Weliav. the London and South Western Railway Company, where the body of a in na found on a dangerous railway ems, and in was even admitted that he skilled by the train, yeb the judge digjjtead with fcho finding of the jury that sha negligence of the company in having a iugaroos railway crossing was the cause of the accident.—Mr Burton contended tint there ww no proof the defendants look any precautions to prevent accidata Irom the sudden drop from 4s platform into deep water. He quoted namerguj authorities to show that it »m only in exceptional cases that a new still «raa grantad on the ground that the wnfict »a» against tbe weight of evidence. -Hij Honor eaid it was quite clear to him shera oaghb to be a new trial. Probably ha ought to have nonsuited tbe plaintiff ttotha nonsuit waa applied for, but be had strong objections to nonsuits. If the j-jry bad found in accordance with the evidence they ought! to bave found the otfier way, aa there waa no evidence to *K(W that) the boy fell off the platform. h to tfieboy's being- unable to swim, he aiodered the evidence tended rather to tSw'tbatibs could swim tban than be eaM inot;°" ; The verdict waa so unsatisfac>vjy to him'that! he had no hesitation in j/)ODin?a new trial,—The qaestion of costs ntfwterved.