SET ASIDE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 136, 10 June 1932, Page 7

SET ASIDE.

N.Z. JUDGMENT. Privy Council Upsets Appeal Court Finding. GAR COLLISION SEQUEL. (United P.A.—Electric Telegraph—Copyright) (Received 12 noon.) LONDON, June 9. Judgment for the plaintiff has been given by the Privy Council in the New Zealand case, Benson v. Kwong Chong. The plaintiff was awarded £1134, and the costs of the action and three trials. This decision reverses the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Nev Zealand following a hearing in September, 1930.

The exact terms of the judgment of the Privy Council will be awaited with a great deal of interest by the legal profession in New Zealand, as the case was one in which the Court of Appeal went to much pains to express its views. The question involved was one relative to the proper itwues to be submitted to a jury in an action for negligence, where the defence of contributory negligence on the port of the plaintiff was act up by the defendant. The Court of Appeal stated in detail and with precision, the question which, in its opinion, was the proper one for tiie jury. Generally speaking, the issues as framed by the Court of Appeal followed the accepted views of the legal profession.

A leading Auckland barrister this morninji, when asked regarding the question of costs, stated that it would be impossible to estimate the exact costs of this legal dispute. It was suggested, however, that £500 would be a very conservative figure. PROTRACTED CASE. IMPORTANT DECISION. (By Telegraph.—l'ress Association.) WANG AN UI, this day. An important legal decision was conveyed by cable this morning to the local solicitor concernud in the protracted litigation, Benson v. Kwong Chong. The Privy Council unanimously reversed and trenchantly reviewed the judgment of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. The appellant, Benson, was awarded the amount claimed and costs. An accident happened to Benson in April, 1929. through a motor cycle collision; with Chong's lorry, driven by Chong's son, who was under the age of 15 and had obtained a license. The action was three times before a jury. The first jury was unable to agree. The second gave a verdict in favour of the plaintiff, but this was set aside by the judge as being perverse.

On the third occasion, the jury having given answers to specific questions, plaintiff and defendant moved for judgment on those answers. Defendant asked in the alternative for a new trial. The motions wore by consent removed into the Court of Appeal, which wae unanimously of opinion that judgment should be for the defendant.

Benson's counsel obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council in forma pauperis, and the appeal was heard last April.