FLYTO THE SECOND.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 81, 3 April 1908, Page 6

FLYTO THE SECOND.

NOT IN "CARTER'S PROGRAMME. MAGICIAN PAYS DAMAGES. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. A ease of interest, chiefly through the appearance of the parties before the public as entertainers, came under the jurisdiction of Dr. McArthur, Sit, to-day, when Lily Gilpin sued Charies Carter, magician, for the sum of £S0 under the Employers' Liability Act, for injuries sustained in a performance at the Opera House, on February 22. The case had been adjourned in order to permit Mr. Carter to attend, but when it was called to-day, Mr. Lewy, counsel for the defendant, asked for a further adjournment, as Mr. Carter was unabb to get down from Palmerston North, where he was giving performances. Mr. Sharpe opposed the application, which his Worship refused to grant. Mr. Sharpe stated that the plaintiff had taken on night work to help her widowed ; mother. She was engaged by defendant ■to take part in any illusion act, in which she had to descend to the stage from a I height of 17ft in an iron cage. At a matinee on February 22 the cage fell, and when the door was opened the plaintiff was discovered huddled up in the corner. She struggled to her feet, and bowed to the audience, then the curtain was rung down quickly, and she fainted. Dr. Hislop was summoned, and found that plaintiff had suffered injuries. Dr. Hislop gave evidence of the injuries to the plaintiff through the accident. The ankle was severely " sprained and the plaintiff was suffering greatly from shock. The plaintiff stated that her age was 19. She worked as a waitress at the Arcadia Hotel, for £1 a week, but tips brought the amount sometimes to £ 1 10/. She was engaged to work at £1 a week by Mr. Carter in the illusion act, "flyto." The witness then described the accident, and the subsequent events. Mr. Carter had got her to sign a paper, which he said exonerated him from blame. Witness thought she was signing a receipt for wages. She was quite unable to attend to her duties as a waitress. In reply to Mr. Levvy, the witness stated that it was her intention if she got well to go on the stage, with which she had been connected indirectly since she was a child. She did not regard the £1 a week paid as partly on account of the danger. After the accident she had no idea that she was signing a document exonerating Carter from blame. She hau always been accustomed to sign receipts for money. After further evidence, and legal argument, his Worship said he would allow plaintiff the actual money she had lost through being out of employment for three weeks. Judgment was therefore entered for plaintiff for £9, with costs 4£5 4/6.