DEATH OF HUSBAND.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18309, 17 February 1925, Page 4

DEATH OF HUSBAND.

• , ( ■ CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS. (press association TEIEGEAM.), . WANG'AiSrUI, February, 16. In connexion with a claim by Annie Cricks, widow . of. Charles Pereival Cricks, against Martin - and Vernon for £2OOO damages incurred by her and lier rion'in consequence of' her husband's death,' which was caused through .a. collision between Cricks's bicycle and onp of defendant's ears, judgment was wrongly stated in a previous message. The issues agreed upon and put to the "jury Were:— -

(1) the driver of the car cause ' the accident by not using reasonable care? ' ? ' (2)" Could Cricks have avoided the '.•incident by exercis';\g Reasonable care for his personal safety? j (3) To what' damages is plaintiff entitled? ' ■ ■ ' ,

His Honour,'" summing up, said that it was important that the jury should afiswcr all {he questions.

After a brief retirement, the fore- j man informed his that, the jury had agreed' to answer the" first "two i! questions in th'c 'affirmative, hut that in. view of their answer to. the second issue, they did not think it necessary to answer the question ( relative to damages. .• „ • ' The Judge/asked'the jury to. retire j again and assess the damages, as in view of the eventualities it was their dutv to. do so.. • •■

The jury then awarded damages. to the extent of £SOO, claimant to receive £3OO and her son £2OO. •

' Mr Cohen, counsel for defendant, thereupon moved for. judgment, submitting that , he was .entitled to receive judgment for his clients. ' ■ His Honour entered judgment " for Martin- and Vernon. .with costs, witnesses ' expenses, and disbursements arid gave a certificate for the second day of the .trial," leaver •'being reserved "to plaintiff's .counsel (Mr Cunningham), should he think fit so to dh, to take out a motion for judgment for plaintiff.