Witnesses, Counsel Mumbled

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31092, 22 June 1966, Page 3

Witnesses, Counsel Mumbled

(Neto Zealand Press Association) PALMERSTON NORTH, June 21. Difficulties in recording Supreme Court cases in which witnesses cannot be persuaded to speak loudly and distinctly were mentioned by Mr Justice Haslam in a reserved judgment today.

The case was an action for damages arising from a road accident by Edward Arthur Magee, a service manager, of Pahiatua, against Joseph Masters Evans, an engineer, of Masterton. A jury awarded Magee £2300 for injuries. Evans later moved to set aside the jury’s finding on the grounds that the amount awarded was excessive. The judge dismissed the motion. “It is regrettable that this action was not settled before trial, as were a number of other similar claims due for hearing at the same sessions

in Palmerston North,” said his Honour. “The real dispute between the parties was relatively simple, and discussion should have produced a figure acceptable to both sides. “The trial itself was unsatisfactory in a number of respects. In spite of my repeated urging to counsel and to witnesses to speak audibly, the plaintiff and his witnesses were, at times, quite indistinguishable in speech, and, unfortunately, counsel, on occasion, were similarly at fault. “In spite of every effort on

my part to overcome these difficulties, it was impossible for a full and adequate note to be taken, and at this late stage I am not prepared to accept any repair or amendment to the transcript, even by agreement. “The passages where the witness could not be heard are not all noted in the transcript, but I was as well placed as were the jury, in that I personally heard all that was said during the trial, and find that the notes, which I checked immediately, fairly record every articulate utterance in the evidence for the plaintiff. “The incompleteness of the plaintiff’s case as presented left unanswered a number of queries concerning basic averments upon which his damages rested. It is possible that fuller information would have removed all

doubts, but at the conclusion of the case I noted my disappointment with the trial. “It appeared to me at one stage that the plaintiff’s counsel was hoping that counsel for the defendant might risk asking a number of hazardous questions, and thus, with redoubled advantage to his opponent, possibly introduce material which had hitherto been omitted during the examination-in-chief. Counsel for the defence was not prepared to give much satisfaction along these lines. “1 was also compelled to intervene to prevent inadmissible questions in reexamination of the plaintiff. “These comments record a situation which was the more regrettable because the plaintiff appeared to be a man of integrity and candour, with no tendency to exaggerate his or disability.**