ARTHRITIS?

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 263, 5 November 1937, Page 8

ARTHRITIS?

LABOURER'S CLAIM. KNOCKED DOWN BY CAR. NEGLIGENCE IS ADMITTED. An action to determine tlic amount Arthur Johnson, labourer, should l>e awarded for injuries received when knocked down l>y a motor car driven l>v Raymond Francis Davis, labourer, was commenced in the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Oallan and a jury of 12. yesterday afternoon, and continued to-day. Plaintiff is represented by Mr. Slipper, and defendant by Mr. Goldstine. The accident occurred on the Great North Road. Point Chevalier, oil January 1(5. The defence admits liability. The plaintiff, who, it was admitted, was struck by a motor car driven by the defendant and knocked down, claims that he. has suffered a permanent injury to his right knee and that he will not be able to do hard work again. Plaintiff pave evidence detailing the accident and the injuries he received, and in answer to Mr. Goldstine said he was receiving the same wages as before the accident, but was now not doing any lifting or trucking at the brewery where he waK employed.

Received £95. In answer to further questions Johnson -.aid in May. his ankle had been injured in a motor accident and he had received £or>. .lames \V. Tavlor had represented him in tliat action, but he did not know that the cheque paid to Taylor was for £144 18/. The amount of the settlement apreed upon mav have been or close upon £I<M). Taylor was not a solicitor, but took the claim up 011 a jiercentafje basis and was doinp the same in the present action. Taylor was to j;et I<> per cent of any damage* awarded.

'Witness was not aware that in May last Taylor had asked for £24 <5/ in full settlement of the claim, hut Taylor had told him the insurance pool had offered £30 and a fee of £3 3/. He had not instructed Taylor to make a settlement.

Dr. ,T. I'. Hastings gave evidence that Johnson hud arthritis.

At this stage, following a conference earlier in the morning between his Honor and counsel for the parties, the jury were sent out of Court and two witnesses gave evidence, the procedure being adopted in order that his Honor should decide whether the evidence was admissible. His Honor decided it was not, and the plaintiff'* case closed.

"Audacious Claim." For the defence. Mr. Goldstine said he would, by calling evidence, prove that •the claim by the plaintiff was one of tlie most audacious and preposterous to be brought in a ( ourt of law. The plaintiff had received no more than a bruising of a leg which had kept him away from his occupation for a fortnight. "I he talk of future pains is not onlv untrue, but is dishonest. and three eminent medical men will give evidence and prove to you that the plaintiff has not got arthritic. The claim is a try-on by the plaintiff to extort money to which lie is not entitled,'' said Mr. Goldstine.

Dr. Thomas W. ,T. Johnson said lie had examined the plaintiff and was definite that lie did not have arthritis. Witness examined plaintiff on October 0 and did not find a single manifestation of arthritis. Witness would not sav plaintiff had received a severe injurv. The hearing is proceeding.