THE BRUNNER DISASTER.
ACTION FOR DAMAGES
(BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION).
Hokitika, this day. At the Supreme Court this morning, in the Brunner case, Mr Cully opened the case for the defence. Ho said they would rely mainly on the following grounds:—(l) That bhe plaintiff Geoghegan was nob a personal representative of the deceased ; (2) thab having issued a process as representative defendanb cannot now sue as n beneficiary ; (3) there was no proof thab there was no other executor or administrator oE deceased at bhe time the action was instituted; (4) assuming thab there was proof of no other administrator plaintiff cannob sue as administrator wibhin six monbhs from the date of death ; (5) thero is no proof of negligence, (6) bhere is no proof of the cause resulting in the disaster, or that tho possible causes, assumed are actionable ; (7) there is no proof that the accident was caused by any person ether than deceased ; (8) there is no prqpf that deceased was not the sole cause or contributed by his negligence to the disaster. Lastly tbab insufficient notice had been given under the Employers Liability Act.
Mr Gully is now addressing tho jury and his address is expected to lasb till bhe luncheon adjournment.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS18970401.2.40
Bibliographic details
Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 75, 1 April 1897, Page 5
Word Count
205THE BRUNNER DISASTER. Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 75, 1 April 1897, Page 5
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.
Log in