LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1219, 30 August 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

CIVIL SITTINGS. FINDING FOR £100 DAMAGES. CASE IN WHICH BOY WAS INJURED WHILE BIDING A TRICYCLE. In the 'Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Sim, hearing was concluded of t-ho case in,which C. B. J. Midlane (by his guardian, q<l litem, C. T. Midkmc) proceeded against Thomas Highet and the Wellington City Council to recover the sum of £600 damages alleged l<o bo duo for injuries sustained. The rase was heard before a jury of twelve. -Mr. P. G. 801-ton appeared for tho p'aintiff C. B. J. Midlano, Mr. E. K. lukcaM-io for the defendant, Hishot, and tho city solicitor (Mr. J. O'bhea) lor the City Council. The faots were thai, on December 11, 1910 Charles Bruce John Midlanc (nominal plaintiff), who is a lad six years of age, was riding a tricycle down Graf ton Kead, Kcscneath, and lost control of the machine, with the result that boy and tricyelo dashed through an opening m tho fence bounding the road, and were carried over an embankment about eighteen feet high on to a concrete structure on defendant's Highots property The lad sustained serious injuries, and had not yet completely recovered. It was alleged that an excavation (made by Highst) had encroached on the wad lino; that such excavation had been made villi the City Council s consent, and that the City Council had failed to keep the guard-fence in proper_ repair. Plaintiff, therefore, claimed £600 dan - ases front Highet and the City Council jointly or alternatively. When tin- case was resumed yesterday morning, his Honour directed Mr. Bolton that, as his causes of action were different us against those of each ol Uio two defendants, be must elect against which of the two he would proceed. Mr. Bolton thereupon chose to go on with the action as α-ainst Hißhet ami the City Solicitor accordingly withdrew from the' case; , . Evidence for the defence was given by Dr. norbext, Dr. Fyffe, and others. Tho following were the issues submitted to tho jury with the findings thereon:— Was the excavation on defendant's property a dangorous nuisance on Decomber U, 1910 ?-" Yes." Did the plaintiff suffer serious injuries by falling into such excavation?— "Yes." Would the plaintiff have suffered tho same or eriually serious injuries if there 'had not been a gap in tho fence?—"Wo do net think the injuries would have been so serious." Were the injuries to tho plaintiff caused ■ by any negligence on his part?— M. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff ' entitled to recover?— £WV. Counsel for plaintiff was not in attendance wheu the verdict was delivered, and judgment was not entered. Tho case will be mentioned this morning. 'CLAIM BY LABOURER ON S.S. CLAN MENZIES FOR .£250 FAILS. A jury of four was empanelled to hear tho caso in which Leslie Trotter, wharf labourer, sued Geo. Herbert Scales, shipowner, to recover the sum of ,£250 damages alleged to be due for bodily injuries received while in his employment. Mr. C. W. Tanner appeared for the.plaintiff Trotter, and Mr. E. B. Brown for tho defendant.

Evidence was given to the effect that plaintiff was, in March last, engaged with others in making up slings of timber for unloading from tho steamer Clan Menzics. While so engaged, he was struck on the heel by a piece of timber, which fell out of one of the slings. He had suffered considerably from tho effects of the accident, and was still unfit for work. It was alleged that tho piece of timber which struck him had fallen out of the sling on account of tho fact that the sling had not bson prdperly fastened. The' main defence was that Trotter had signsd a receipt to the insurance company concerned in full discharge of;all claims' which he might "hive against tho defendant, Scales.

Trotter admitted in cross-examination that hs had signed a document, but claimed that he did not know the purport of it when he appended his signature. Tho amount actually paid to him under the Workers' Compensation Act was .£2l. Tho following were the questions put to the jury:— Did the plaintiff agree to accept the sum of .£l3 3s. lOd. (paid to him on June 13, together with sums previously paid to him in fall settlement of any" claims which he had against the defendaivt in respect of the accident to tho plaintiff? Was the injury caused by any negligent act on the part of any person employed by the defendant? If so, what damages is the plaintiff en- . titled to recover? ' The first question was answered in the affirmative, and there was therefore no necessity to coasider the other two. Judgment was accordingly entered for defendant, George Herbert Scales, with the usual costs, and., at 5.50 p.m., the Court adjourned until 9.30 a.m. to-day.