CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 194, 17 August 1922, Page 7

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

HAUKAKI PLAINS CASE. , A PERSISTENT DEFENCE. The claim of John Drent (Mr. Mc- | Gregtiri against Crawford Bros., farmers, , Turiia, for £550 damajes for alleged ] negligence by failure to provide a habit-j , able and healthy hou-e and to provide,] sanitary milking sheds, plaintiff there-' j fore having contracted pernicious nnae- j 1 piia. and suffered ill health, was con- , s tinued before Mr. Justice Herdmitn and ( concluded this morning. " 1 At midday yesterday his Honor inti- i mated stroiiglv thai the case was weak, j 1 but counsel for the plaintiff I Mr. Mc-1 1 (Iregor, Murrinsville', preferred t>> pro- i cerd and rely on the jury. 1 Dr. Gunson said the cause of pernici- j 1 otis anaemia was t|uite unknown and. there was speculation as to its possible, causes. That a nn'n contracted it through | working in a dirty cowshed was pure ; guesswork. Taking too much alcohol might I he just as much the ctuise. Willi Dr. Milsoni, who gave similar evidence, he agreed that one blood test was insufficient to diagnose pernicious anaemia, which was an intractable and generally. fatal dis-,' ease. Tt was unlikely, but possible, that ' plaintiff had pernicious anaemia, and the I fact that tin , man survived made for thoj : presumption that the man di.l hot have j the disease. Dr. Milsom considered plain-1 tiff was probably sullering from severe! ' anaemia. j . His llonYtr drew attention to the fact | that the medical evidence advanced for:, not definite as to the cause j of the disease, and the evidence did lint i ; disclose that the house -was unsuitable j or that the cowshed was insanitary. His ] Honor said he would have to direct tlie 1 jury accordingly. i THE COUNTER-CLAIM. \ Mr. Prendergast, for defendants, who", had moved for a nonsuit, then called , evidence supporting the counter-claim ', for £280, alleging failure by plaintiff to ( carry out his agreement. j t Mr. McGregor, for plaintiff, objected , to any evidence of drinking as it was not j put forward as an affirmative defence • to which he could reply. 1 s His Honor said the defendants denied ; that the alleged insanitary conditions ( caused the illness, and they had the i right to show there was another possible 1 cause. His "Honor said he would posi- 1 tivelv direct the jury as previously mdi-, 1 cated. • j ( Mr. McGregor asked that his objection; ( be not?d. 1 ( Mr. Premlergnst called thp evidence and 1 after counsel addressed the jury his t Honor said he would sum up to-day. |i His Honor, in reviewing the eas?, - s aid { it appeared from the contract that plain- 1 tiff was under obligation to perform cer- i f tain duties, including the keeping clean of the cowshed and yard. After dealing 1 with the medical evidence his Honor.' said he was bound to direct the jury on : t the evidence that the plaintiff was "Hot £ entitled to succeed on the point that the > disease was pernicious, or. if it was. tint 1 it was the result .of working in thai' environment alleged. Four issues aris-| in» from the action were put to the jury. ' The jury returned a verdict that plaintiff' was not suffering from per- ' liiciotlß anaemia, found against plaintiff for the claim, and asainst defendant on ' the counter-claim. The jury were then discharged. Costs are to be paid sepa- < lately by the respective parties. '