Supreme Court Crown Disputes Jury’s Verdict On Claim

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30178, 9 July 1963, Page 8

Supreme Court Crown Disputes Jury’s Verdict On Claim

Mr Justice Wilson reserved his decision in the Supreme Court yesterday on a motion by the Attorney-General for judgment or a new trial in a damages claim heard in ApriK In the original hearing in the Christchurch Supreme Court on April 22 and 23, a jury found for the defendant, Eric Allan Graham, a plumber and drainlayer, in a claim for £1956 by the Army Department. The hearing was before the late Mr Justice Leicester.

The Army Department had claimed these damages in respect of a hut at Burnham Military Camp, which was damaged by fire in September, 1960. At the hearing evidence was given that the defendant and his men were working on the hut replacing copper spouting and downpipes. The job was completed at 8 a.m. and shortly after midday the hut was found to be on fire.

It was alleged that Graham had been negligent in that his men had worked on the spouting, already in position, with a blow-torch, and had not taken the proper precautions to prevent fire. Graham and his assistants gave evidence that, after a joint had been soldered,

water was thrown up under the eaves to extinguish any sparks. The jury found that the fire had been caused by the defendant's welding activities, but that there had been no negligence. For the Attorney-General, Mr C. M. Roper asked for judgment or a new trial on two grounds:— (1) there was no evidence to sustain the verdict that the fire was not caused or contributed to by negligence by the defendant" (2) On the pleadings and on the evidence, a verdict for the Attorney-General was the only one which .the jury could reasonably have found. For Graham. Mr R. P. Thompson submitted that the jury was not unreasonable in its answers to the questions requiring a decision.