CLAIM FOR £3,000.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 130, 3 June 1922, Page 6

CLAIM FOR £3,000.

ENDEAN'S BTJTXDING FATALITY THE FINDING OF THE .JURY. EFFECT TO BE ARGUED. The hearing of the action in which Annie Olive Jones claimed £3000 damages from Norman Taylor, master painter, trading as John Henderson and Company, for the loss of her husband, who was one of four men killed in the scaffolding accident in Endean's Buildings on February 1 last, was concluded in the Supreme Court iate yesterday afternoon after the '"Star" had gone to press. Mr. A. H. Johnstone and Mr. J. Butler appeared for plaintiff., and for the defendant Mr. W. D. Anderson and Mr. AY. P. Endean appeared. JURY'S ANSWERS TO THE ISSUES. The jury, after a retirement of three hours, returned with the following answers to the issues put to them by Mr. Justice Stinger: — Was the scaffolding- as erected reason, ably fit for the purpose for which it was used? —No. as the accident proved. Tf not. was its defective condition due to the failure of the defendants to have and to exercise reasonable knowledge, care and skill: (a) in the selection of the materials used? —Xo. (9 to 3); (b) in the erection of the material actually suppliod?—No (9 to 3). AA'as the accident attributable to the contributory negligence of the deceased? —No. (11 to 1). Did the defendants comply with the provisions of the Scaffolding Act?—No 111 to 11. If the answer is in the negative, did the accident result from failure to comply with the Act?—No (0 to 3). Did the scaffolding inspector in fact pass the scaffoldincr as erected, although no certificate under the Act was given? —Yes (9 to 3). The jury did not answer thr seventh issue put to them, the foreman stating that therp was no necessity to do so. His Honor, however, directed the jury that it was imperative that the amount of the damages must be filled in. nn the assumption that the verdict was !n favour of the pltvntiff. His Honor, after the jury withdrew, stated that it seemed to him that it was plainly a verdict for the plaintiff.

Mr. Anderson submitted that ir was' not. stating that the answers to the second issue > instituted a verdict for the defendant. After further consideration, the Jndgp said that it certainly- looked like a verdict for the defendant. Mr. Johnstone then mentioned the matter of application for a new trial. On retiimine. the inrv stated that it had. by 10 votes tn 2. fixed damages nt. £700 for the child and f.tno for the widow. However, the pfTpor n f ( Ml . iurv's finding was deferred for further aro-timent. j The following ridpr was presented by the hire;—" That the practice of the T,abnnr Department in normiftin. workwithout a written permit is \rroti.. and that the provisions of the Sfaffnldinp- , Act should, in justice, be complied \ with." j His Honor: Yps. that is quite right, j gentlemen )