CLAIM JOR DAMAGES. VERDICT FOR £500.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 48, 26 February 1908, Page 3

CLAIM JOR DAMAGES. VERDICT FOR £500.

NOTICE OF APPEAL. Hearing of tho case of Heber Brown v. Hcenan and Froude, Ltd., a claim for £1000 damages by a labourer employed in the erection of tha new destructor station at Clyde-quay against the contractors, for injuries alleged to have been sustained through their negligence, was continued throughout yesterday afternoon and evening before Mr. Justice Chapman, and did not conclude until half an hour after midnight. Mr. Skerrett, X.C, with him Mr Ostler, appeared for tho plaintiff ; Mr. Menteath for the defendants. The case for th© plaintiff had not concluded when the Post went to press yesterday. The basis of the claim for damages was that tho plaintiff had been obliged to use for the purposes of his work a strut or cross-beam a* a icaffold, and this being unsafe and insecurely fastened had given way and precipitated him to the ground, causing serious injuries. The accident took place jn tho 26th September last. Evidence was given by the plaintiff and others in support of the claim. , Further evidence was given by Joseph Lube, labourer, who had stood on the strut in question, [n cross-ex-amination a model of the (structure in course of erection was employed to ilustrate the circumstances. There was no other way, stated witness, of getting to the ironbark spar except by climbing over the struts. William Bendall, master mariner, and Lloyds surveyor, Wellington, said he had known the plaintiff for seven or eight years and employed him as foreman in salvage operations and surveying. He had always tound him a faithful servant and alert ana intelligent. John ShcVriff, labourer, employed on tho destiuctor for four months, gave corroborative evidencs concerning the us© of the stints prior to Brown's arrival on tho woik. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. . Mr. Menteath rnbmitrccl that the evidence for the plaintiff showed that the strut was not intended for a Scaffold, but 'that some of tho men had chosen to stand on it from time to time, and Brown seeing thorn stand there had followed suit and met with the accident. Plainlifl had been specially chosen on the ground of his experience as a specially qualified man. It was impossible for the defendants in a job of this kind to look after the smallest detail. Tho plaintiff was not like an ignorant labourer unaccustomed to machinery. It was an impossibility to wedge the struts from below, as -.had been suggested. Mr. 'MentcaLh further contended that the plaintin must have known that- the strut was noL to bo used as a scaffold. The erection of machinery necessitated a good deal of temporary adjustments such as these struts were. At the time tho beam was being lowcrod, the struts would have to be removed in order to let tho beam down. The plaintiff must have jumped on tho strut to have dislodged it from its position. Edward Taylor, foreman in charge of the destructor, stated that at the time of the accident ho was standing in a ■window hole in tho wnll. Brown was on top of the heater; Jon?s was sitting on the principal. Witness told Browo to throw Jones a rope to haul up the heavier tackle, and then went through the door. He heard a fall, and coming back saw Brown hanging on to scaffolding lower down. Brown had no right tc go on tho strut at all. There was no reason why he should not hav£ thrown the ropo to Jones. He did not climb on tho beam to carry out th<j | witness's instructions. There were twe ways to get to th? beam — by the laddei to the boiler, or by the brick ledge. The ladder might have been moved, if want^ cd. Witness had never stood on ths strut or on any of the strata. Thor? were about a dozen ladders in variout places cibout the works — some of wood and some of iron. There was plontj of rope and tackle about the 'place. Tho iron ladders had hooks on there for building into brick or 'concrete, Tho purpose of ths lashings on the struts was to secure the rigidity of tht structure while the boilers were beirij; erected. Witness neither ordered ths lashing to be removed, nor knew of it: removal. Cross-examined, the witness statec that ho had cautioned Jones and Sherrifl against standing on the struts. Witness did not see Jones going up to th( principal. All tho ladders could be handled by workmen of ordinarj strength. The precent was the first jot th» witness had had in the erection oJ boilem. Henry Haspwell, chief engineer of the City Council 5 pumping station, stntec that on the date in question he <hac ini-pected the struts and found thorn ii position. He would not trust his whol< weight to a strut at any time. Dr. Gilmer considered that sis months' proper treatment -would enabh tho plaintiti' to follow his occupatior again. Dr. Herbert was of a similar opinion except that he thought the ankle woulc never bo as good as. oeiore. Evidence- ns to the nature of the np pliances, used on the work was alsc given by George Gilham, engineer's as ristant, "George Seagsr, shipbuilder one engineer, Hiram Ashcroft, blacksmith Harry- F. Ashcroft, fitter, Albert Ed ward Carpenter, fitter, and Jo&epl Burns, fitter, all of whom had beer engaged on the destructor at the time' William H. Morton, City Engineer, stated that tho struts were properly seemed for the purpose for wa.di mey were intended. Thomas C. Ormiston Chant, C.E.. superintendent engineer for the defendants in New Zealand, &tated that ho had been responsible for part of the design, and the whole of the erection of the works. There were at lrast four wooden nnd fourteen ivon lnftdrrs on tho premises. 1J« had nevoi E^en nor heard of men standing on the Citruts. This concluded tho caso fov the defence. • Counsel having iicklmscd the jury nntl his Honour having summed up, the j'.uy retired, nn<-l a'trr about an hour's absence returner] with n verdict of £500 for tho plaintiff. Judgment was entcied for that I amount, with colts, witnesses' exp^mef', and an allowance of six guineas for second counsel. Mi. Mentealh gave notice of appeal m have judgment set aside on thy Kionnd that tho damages awarded were m excess of tho maximum amount allowed under the Employe's' Liability Act, and that there- was no liability on the 'part of the defendant ut common Liu.

"High building?, sir?" lemarkeil an Awpriran contemptuously, "Why in England you don't know what hoiglit is. La r l tmio I was in Now York it was a b'azing lint cay, and 1 taw a man coming out of the lift wrapned from top to toe in bear-skins, ami I said to him, 'Why aiv \ou muff lccl up on abi oiling day like ihicV 'Wa-al,' ho tJia, ''you &cc, I live at the top of the buildm", and it'= co high that it'j. coa creel with snow all the year round I' '