THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17272, 10 October 1921, Page 4

THE COURTS.

f-TT—!-SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Ad turns.) FUBAU BAY ROAD MOTOR FATALITY. The healing was resumed of the action in which O. A. Oakley (Mr H. K. McDougall, wifli liim Mr H. A. Outhbert) sought to recover £ISOO special damages from Uia Mount Herbert County Council (Mr F. _W. Johnston, with him Mr A. F. Wright) in Tospect of the death ot> plaintiff's wife, Mary Jean Oakley, in a motor accident on March Bth, 1921. His Honour gave lengthy judgment on the non-suit points raissd on _ behalf of the defendant . corporation, dealing seriatim witli the four grounds of neglige 1100 alleged by plaintiff—(l) ■ the qovering of the surface of the road with pug or clay, causing an exceptionally greasy surface; (2) the grading oj the road resulting in - the crown being moved' from tho centre to a foot or two.ol the gutter and leaving a slope towards the o'ute'r edge; (3) the narrowing of the usable width, of tho Toad; and (4) the removal of the stone parapet. His Honour said that there ' was no suggestion that t|fe County Council, up to nine vears ago, had altered or interfere with the road, many-way, except the usual surfaceman's work. Judicial decisions in New Zealand regarding tho liability 01 Wal bodies necessarily followed those of the English Courts, with thai,qualification that in a new country local circumstances had to , be taken into, consideration. As a, general proposition it • might" b® put that there- w*s no obligation 011, a local body to keep the curtaoe of a road in wHpaif," Or to make 11 safe for traffic; plaintiff had to show that the local tody by-some act which was negligent or improper, had or brought about, a condition of 'affairs, rendering dangerous; or dangerous than it had been; and that such, act was the effective cause of the accident in respect of which damages were sought. His Honour then referred to the ©videnoe in Tespeot of the deferent allegations of negligence, and cited several New Zealand cases which apphed to the questions of local bodies' liability. There was no evidence, his Honour went on to say, that the road was commonly used for motor traffic; the road was a county one, and {here was no obtigatibm on the local body to make such a road ssfe for motor; traffic; there was no evidence of the. road being used for such traffio except rarely—it might be, but the evidence did not show that it was. . There was no duty,'as the cases his Honour had referred to.showed dearly, on a local body to fenoe dangerous portions of a road, or to make t rpad eafe; the public were oflerod the use of a road subjeot to all known risks—the emphasis being on the word "known." ■ In the present , case, his Honour could not . conceive any circumntanoee iii which after S lapse of niiie years from the removal of a row of stonee such. as those said to have existed,f it could be, said that -the. road wu a trap. Concludin-j, his Honour said that; the evidence" was not suoh a* would justify twelve reasonable men in finding _ ■verdict for the. plaintiff, and it. was Uie plain dirty of the Court to givo. judgment for the .defendant or Mo non-suit. The Court ought not to shirk that duty merely because it was in easier thing .to shift the responsibility on to the shoulders:of the jury. He would,<ii«rfore, > withdraw the cat* from.the jury 4,t>-this - would give-judgment defendant; unless _ counsel showed" caus». 'wh»' J»-.beet'-'ess®. forward. . ' His Honour said that, he Teoofnued that Mr McDougall liad laboured under' a d»fli* culty in reference to ths> evidence; some of ■m- witnessed. had not anticipated. did not thilii. that • sjnyope iould j say that counsel for plaintUi •had^aot,done>theit: -full * duty. /; ■; Mr Wright: In that,case I move for judgment "tor defendant. ■ Sis Honour •nfered- 'up ]udgn»nt : defendant with cotts as per Boale, witnessee' ■ajsMMements tntf espouses to b«. fixed tho Registrar: his Honour c*ttified.for ts «tra day an? a half at £ls 15s per day, and for second counsel, two days, audi half at £8 89 per day, and for costs of special jury. ! Court adjourned! till 10.30 a.m. to-oay. MAGISTHUAL. SATURDAY. • . (Before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M.) : V DEUNKEXNESS; . ! Alexander ißague, a-•'Bccoiid. offender for drunkenness, was 'fined 20s, ill default 4® hours' impriEoiiaient.. Johti W.vnn'T)leaa«id guilty to charges> of being found in » state of drunkenness on' the Chiistchurck- Railway Station: and to procuring liquor whilst prohibited. He was coljucted ond fined 30s, in defiralt tkreo days' imprisonment, on the first oluttge, and ;'£3, in default seven day*, <m the second. •" -• < . ' . - • REMANDED, i William Whitla Was charged with; disobedience of a- maintenance order. Hi waa remanded, to appear on' October llt^. (Before Mr S. E. McOftrthy, S.M.) JUVENILE COUKT. A boy aged lis years was charged witti the theft of » double-barxelW shotgun, at £ls ios, and of 3S» Cd ia caadi. He pleaded not ..''guilty to th« first and guilty to the 86CO&U " It was stated that he was a thoroughly bad boy, and an nwomplishtd liar. _ Th* first charge waa dismisesd, and on the s«c-_ ond< he was committed to the Christchurch Keoeiving Home. ' , ' , • A lad aged 14 years wae fined 10a and costs for driving ft gig without lights. - A yoathful offender of 14 y«aw was cJuxged withfthvtheft of fittings, valued at £HOt, from a jnotor-bicycls. Ho was ordered to report to tho Probation Officer for two years, and wis barred from attending pictures ox I being cut after dark for that period. Another boy of the same age TO ch«j«d with the theft of £6 10s. He was committed to the Christchuioh Keeeiving Home.

IN OTHER PLACES.

' A TOBY'S V2&OHOT.

APPEAL COtFRT ORDERS •JTE'W TRIAL. Judgment was delivered by the Court of .Appw»l a* "Wellington on Saturday in the i eu* of B<x t. Frtdttick Wmltar Boaco* >sd

Henry Charles Holland. Eoscoo and Holland were charged at the laEt criminal Billing of tlie "Wellington Supremo Court with theft of goods from their employer's lvaroThat they had taken the foods Tas admitted by them to the polire, but their defence was that- they took the !,'ood3 to buyers, and intended to pay for them. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, with '9* strong recommendation for leniency on account of iiiauftieiouey of proof that they did not intend to pay for the goods. ' Mr Justice Heed declined to accept tin .-erdict, and instructed the jury to retire again, Mr C. A. L. Trcndwoil, counsel , f or t!:P (leter.'te, meanwhile submitting that tii& verdict was really one of not guilty. 'ilie jury subsequently returned a verdict of guilty, with the strongest recommendation to mercy. Mr Justice llsed than stated u caso for _ the Court of Appeal, tie two questions being: (1) Whether the learned Judge was 3 iglit in refusing to accSpt as their verdict the finding ivhich the. jury first brought in; and (2) whether his direction to the jury was risht. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal considered that Mr Justice Reed had acted within iiii powers in asking the, jury to lef onsider its finding. In regard to the se'ojid point, the Court stated that the Judge's directions were calculated to give tho jury a' Wrong impression as to tho manner in which it should hav« approached the consideration of the evidence with regard to the burden, of proof. The direction given to the ■gury after its.coming in on the first occasion stated most pointedly that it waa necessary for the accused to satisfy it that they intended to pay for the goods. This, the Court coneidert-J, was an erroneous mode in which to have put the position. The Court thought th»t tho verdict should be set aside, and directed a new trial, to be held at the next criminal sessions. At the -hearing of the case, Mr W„ C. MacGregor, K.C. (Solicitor-General), appeared for the Crown, and Mr H. H. Cornish (on behalf of Mr GVA. JL. Treadwiill) for Boscoe and Holland. "SEXTENCIiS 'REDUCED. • Judgment was delivered'by the. Court of Appeal at Wellington 011 Saturday regarding its deliberations upon the appeal made lor a reduction) of a. sentence of five yeare' reformative detention imposed by the ActingChief Justice, Mr Justice Simj at Da&edin, in the case of. Benjamin. Siever, who was convicted on charts of breaking, entering, and -theft. . Prisoner b&sad his-' appeal upon several grtmnds, the-chief of.whioh were that the .sentence 'wa» unduly, harsh in view of the fact that ho had not bfeen, previously convicted, and thit flue conaidetation was not given to the judy'i recommendation. .. The Court decided' that in view of oil the circumstances the eintenpe- should be reduced .to' one. of "two' years' informative d*- ( «1«* isduoedJ the sentences oj Allan Raymond George, who was sentenced by 5Tr Justice Salmond-to three, year's imprisonment for bigamy, totaie Of two years imprisonment with hard labour; and of Percival Kliys Wingrove, who'wits three years' reformative detention by Mr Justice* Adams for Having made a false declaration in reipect of a. marriage certificate, to-two years' detention.