SUPREME COURT.

Evening Post, Volume XXVIII, Issue 43, 19 August 1884, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

»_ CIVIL SITTINGS. Before his Honour Mr. Justice Richmond.] The sitting of the Supreme Court in civil jurisdiction was continued yesterday afternoon. GUTHBIE V. HOWDEM. This case was tried before bis Honour and a jury of four. The Hon. Mr. Buckley appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Izard for the defendant. The aotion was brought to recover £300, for compensation in respect of an acoident sustained by a boy under 16 years of age while working at tho defendant company' a Biscuit Faotory. It was represented that in the middle of July, 1882, Mrs. Guthrie made an engagement with the defendant oompany whereby the boy was to be employed in packing biscuits. On the 19th January, 1883, the boy was engaged paßßing dough throngl rollers, when his arm was carried through and considerably torn, Dr. Collins having tc pnt 16 stitches into the limb. The following evidence was taken :— Alfred Robert Meech, a clerk employed bj Mr. Sidey, remembered the morning of _the accident, which he described. Caroline Guthrie, mother of the boy, said in July, 1882, she made an arrangement either with Mr. Kearsley, manager, or with Mr. Howden for the boy to be engaged in packing biscuits. She would not have allowed him to work at the machinery. She had no idea that her son had been taken off biscuit packing and put to the machinery. After the accident she spoke to Mr. Howden on the subject, expressing her surprise that the boy had been put to machinery work. She 'asked him for the boy's wages. Mr. Howden said he was not going to keep her family. He also said the boy ought not to have been playing with the machinery. Subsequently he undertook to pay the boy's wages, and did bo for a period of four months. Tho boy had never been able to do anything since. . , Dr. Gillon said he examined the boy on Friday last, and found a dcatrix from three inches from the top of the shoulder to two inohes below the elbow. There was also an ulcer on the point of the elbow. Dr. Raweon also described the nature of the wound. „ „ George Gnthrie, the boy in question, said he was taken off the biscuit packing after being at the faotory for six months, and had b"*n at the machinery fo« abont » 'ortnieln; \\\ 11 tl '• •<* <•;.].».» ••"' uirel. I?" m\T 'jl<4 hia" mother that he had twon pnt to the maohinery. He was paid 8s per week, but was to have got 10s per week, beginning with the Saturday after the aocident. Herman Hermansw, warder at the Ho*

«M,^e^eafo"th'eT>oyTiaWK^l«ffWtwr»«?7 Hospital for four months. This dosed the case for the plaintiff. Samuel J. Priest, engineer at the Biscuit Factory, deposed to having frequently oantionod the boy for playing with the brake t tho machinery. Ho witnessed the aooident, whioh was tho boy's own fault, as ho had no right to touch tho dough after it had been caught by the rollers. Thomas Bailey, a youth employed at tho factory, also saw the aooidont, and said young Guthrio had no businoss at tho brako at all, his work being at tho cutting maohine. Gnthrio told witnoss that tho fault was his own. Other witnesses woro examined for tho defeuoo, their ovidonoo boing of a somowhat similar nature. The jnry returned a verdiot for the plaintiff, awarding damagos at £20 16s, boing one year's wages at 8s per woek. Tho quostion of costs was ordered to stand ovor. The Court then adjonrnod.