SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12974, 29 November 1907, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. The civil sessions of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday bofore Mr Justice Chapman. CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. The hearing of the <*ase of Alice Young v City Council, a claim for £2000 as compensation for the death of the plaintiff's husband at the Christchurch railway yard on June 11th,was resumed. Mr Hunt, with him Mr Kirk, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Stringer, K.C., with him Mr Cowlzshaw, for the City Council. At the request of Mr Stringer, the witness Paterson who had given evidence on the previous day was recalled. The -witness said that the shunter had been sent through the van] to pilot thu Tonnore special in. Ho hnd to s<e that the road was clear. Hie points on the running road were not usually locked. He did not know that v- was a common occurrence to collide '.villi foul trucks. Ho was not aware that such a collision had occurred within the. last three months. Grainger Tait Clark, employed by the City Council, said thai he had been in charge of the loading trucks tor some years. If ho found the trucks in a position m which ho could not loa-d them, he either requested a shunter to put them in a proper position, or asked Mr Smith, tho manager of Heywood and Co., to have the trucks put where they were wanted. There was no particular piece localised, for tno purpose of loading. Tho trucks wore loaded whoro they were found on the aught of Juno 11th. He readied the cross-ing-keeper's hut at about ton o clock, aaid chatted with the crossing-keeper for some time. He then opened the Carlyle street gates to allow the carts to come. in. and went oveT to the trucks. The night was dark and foggy, and ho caw nobody about in that part of the yard. Hβ assumed that the trucks were in c right position to toad; certainly they were in a position in which they could be loaded. He prepared the trucks for loading, and had finished that work just before the. larte southern express arrived. Shortly afterwards the first cart arrived, driven by lrwin, and woe brought up alongside the leading truck. The pans were transferred from the cart to the truck, and. lrwin drove away to pick up another load. A second cart-, driven by Byers, arrived before lrwin loft, and Byers waited until lrwin had unloaded Ibis cart. Byers's cart was then unloaded into the first truck, but Byers had to wait for his empties before he couOd leave again. He then heard a.n engine, apparently coming up pretty fast, with trucks containing empties that had recentily arrived. He stopped out to ca.ll to tfh© "driver, and tftien noticed that tho trucks were in a wrong position. He snouted to the driver to warn him, and jumped aside, and the collision then occurred. Up to that time he had no knowledge that the trucks were beyond the points. From the first to the last hie had not shifted the trucks from the position in which he found them wJion he went on duty tihat night. Hβ had never at any time interfered with the trucks, except to put the brakes on when requested to do so by the railway men when they were "kicking" the trucks into position. After the accident he did not hear anybody ray tfcati 'tlhel _. Council men had placed the trucks foul of the points. Hβ had no knowledge of how to uncouple the Westinghouse, β-nd the trucks were connected with the brake. He was not strong enough to shift a truck by himself. Hβ had on previous occasions seen the points fouled by the trucks, but the fouling had been detected before anything happened. After the accident he had been discharged, but Mr Dobson, tho City Engineer, told him that that was because tho Council were cutting down expenses, and wanted to dispense with a man and a waggon. Mr Dobson then offered him a pick 'and shovel job. which he would not take. As far as he knew, his discharge had nothing to do with what happened on the night of June 11th. I>avid lrwin stated that he had been driving one of the Council carts to the railway for the past six years. Hβ mad© two tripe each night. On June lRh ihe drove into tho yard at about 10.45 p.m. He drew up Dy tho first truck and discharged his load, and then pulled up by the second truck, and reloaded bis dray with empties, and then drove away. He did not notice that the trucks were on the old import road. Byers arrived while he was unloading, and when he drove away he left Clark and Byers together. He had done nothing to alter the position of tho trucks that evening.

Thomas Byers. formerly a driver of one of the City Council carts, said that he had been engaged on the work for five and a half years before June Inst. lOn tho night of June 11th, I everything appeared to be in ordor, end there was nothing to show that there was anything wrong i with tho position of the trucks. It j was not until after the accident that Iho knew the trucks were foul of the points. He had not interfered with tho trucks, and did not see anybody else interfere with them. Arthur Smith, manager of J. M. Hoywood and, Co.. stated that he had previously been in the railway service, and was acquainted with shunting operations. Heywood and Co. were the successful tenderers for Ac dray work connected with the sanitary system of tho Council. The arrangement with tho Railway Department was that the trucks were to bo placed in the yard whore they could be loaded. After the now import road was constructed, the trucks were loaded on that road, but the position of the trucks on that road varied according to the quantity of other rolling stock on the road, and the trucks had to be loaded where they wero found. On two occasions he had been called up to get the railway people to plnoe the trucks where they could be loaded. When a truck was kicked it was uncertain where it would stop, and trucks had been left so close to the points that there was not more than an inch clearance.

Arthur J>udley Dobson, City Engineer, gave evidence that he had examined the old import road, and found that it -was open at either end. On Friday last he paid a casual visit to the yard, and saw trucks on tho new import and the old import roads. He noticed that the trucks on the new import road would have cleared the trucks on the old import road by 3\ inches, and the latter trucks had been lifted. Yesterday he had visited the yard again and noticed from the position of tho trucks that there was only a clearance of 9 inches. The least kici would have fouled the ■points. A person whose bueiness_was to load the trucks would not have noticed, unless he looked carefiully, that the trucks were foul on the morning of June 11th. . \fter an hour's retirement the jury returned a verdict for the Pontiff with £900 damages, £600 for the widow, and £300 for *ho child. Judgment was entered accordingly, subject to the questions reserved, with

costs according to scale, witnesses' disbursements ■ and expenses, £12 12s, being allowed for second day. and £7 7$ for second counsel. ALLEGED SLANDER. The case of McDonald v Ackroyd, claim £20!) damages for alleged slander. wa» heard before his Honour and a common jury of four. Mr R<iwe appeared for rh* plaintiff, and Mr Hunt for the defendant. Ernest Charles. McDonald, tho plaintiff, stated that ho was a tailor, and hnd formerly carried on biii*inci» at 228 Cashel street. On tho night of August ltjth a fire broke out in his building, part of which was occupied by the defendant. "The Prose" stated that tho tire apparently originated in his place, and the "Lyttelton Time*" that it originated in "Mr Ackroyd's place. In the next issue of tho "Time*" , a correction appeared that the tire j started in his (witness's) premises. On Monday, August 19th. he was in the auction room of Mr Victor where the goods, damaged by the fire wore to be sold, and taw Mr Ackroyd there. He spoke to him about the correction in the paper, and told him he had no right to make such a fuss about tho fire. Ackroyd then said to him: "Why. McDonald", you are heavily insured, and you have not to worth of stock on your premises. The police are on your track, and you had better i keep quiet." He then told Ackroyd that if he- did not apologise he would issue a writ against him. He caused j a letter to be written to the defen- | dant, demanding an apology, and he delivered the letter to the defendant himself. The defendant told him not. to be a fool and waste money or the solicitors, and laughed at the idea of making a public apology. At- the time of tho fire he (witness) was insured for £200, but only £170 of that amount was payable. He received £150 from the insurance company, after due enquiries had been made Ivy the company regarding jhe clothes belonging to customers left on the premises.

To Mr Hunt: He had not insured again since the fire, but had :nade application a few days ago for the ksue of a policy. Ho was in business in Sydney before rooming to Chrietehurch, but did not go bankrupt or compound with his creditors. He sold clothes ou the hire purchase system, but only cued for the re-turn of the clothes when his customers were trying to swindle him. He had not compounded with his creditors in Uuri6tchurch, but had handed over his book debts to the wholesale firm which had supplied him with goods in settlement of their claims againet him. He paid debts with the insurance money, but he was financially poorer after the fire than before. At present ho was in bueinesn in Colombo street

Mflurice Harris, son of Victor Harris, auctioneer, gave evidence relating to the conversation between McDonald and A.ckroyd at the auction room*. Christopher G. H. Gladstone, iusuranee canvasser and collector, gave evidence as to a conversation with defendant regarding the fare. He took it from what Ackroyd said that McDonald had committed the crime of arson.

Mr Hunt submitted that no case bad been made out, for it had been laid down that the words complained of must clearly impute a. crime punishable by imprisonment, and that had not been proved in the present case. His Honour held that the expression stated to bo used might be so interpreted. Alfred Edward Aokroyd, soft goods warehouseman, stated that he had not contradicted what had appeared in the "Lyttefyon Times." He tried to do bo, but was told that the contradiction must come from Superintendent Smith, and that was done. When he met McDonald in the auction room McDonald «iid that it was a dirty trick for him to make the contradiction, and he replied that that was done by Superintendent Smith. McDonald asked him what goods ho (Ackroyd) had on the premises destroyed by fire, and he replied about £5 worth. A police officer had previously approached him regarding McDonald, and he informed McDonald of that. GJadstone ? with whom he 'had a conversation, said that McDonald -would lose over £200 by reason of the fire, and he replied that he knew quite well what was the value of the goods McDonald had on his promisee.

The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict for tho defendant.

judgment was entered up accordingly, with coste on the lowest ecele.