LAUGHTER IN COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22682, 23 June 1937, Page 16

LAUGHTER IN COURT

WOMAN CONDUCTS OWN CASE ALLEGEDLY BITTEN BY HORSE Alleging' that she had been bitten 15 months ago by a horse, ,a woman sued a transport company in a Sydney court last week for £SOO damages for nervous shock following the bite from tho animal. At the close of her evidence she was non-suited by the judge. The plaintiff was Miss Amelia Batten. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant company “ wrongfully kept a horse of a fierce and mischievous nature, and accustomed to bite mankind, well knowing that the horse was of such a fierce and mischievous nature ”; that tho horse “ attacked and bit the plaintiff, whereby she was wounded and became sick, and incurred expense for the replacement of damaged wearing apparel, and was otherwise greatly damnified.” Defendant company submitted a plea of not guilty and a denial that the horse was of a fierce and mischievous nature. When tho plaintiff, a tall woman, dressed in black and veiled, had exeri nrr right to strike out the names of two jurymen from the panel of eight, she was informed by Mr Justice Maxwell that she was entitled to tell the jury all about tho matter and describe the injuries sustained. “ I will tell these gents,she said as she moved over to tho jury box, carrying an umbrella, handbag, and brown paper parcel. , “ May I suggest that you stand at the bar table and address the jury,” said His Honour. “ They do that in America; but not here.” (Laughter.)" Miss Batten then told the jury that she lived in Hampton Court, Bayswater road, Darlinghurst. On February 27, 1936, she had occasion to cross Goderich Lane to pay her rent. When halfway across her progress was stopped by a delivery cart belonging to defendant company. She therefore crossed in front of the two horses, one of which sprang forward and bit her on the right arm. She sustained a severe shock; and her dress was torn by the horse. Witness produced a black dress which had holes in it, and, according to the plaintiff, was stained with horse’s saliva. Plaintiff said that her treatment for her nervous condition was a mixture of rhubarb and magnesia. His Honour: How are you feeling now ? " Witness: Very nervous. Is that because you are in the box? —Oh, no. Why did you not get a doctor. Don’t you believe in them?—Yes; I don’t mind giving them assistance. Mr Herron (for the defendant company) : There is a doctor in Hampton Court ? Plaintiff: I understand there is; but [ have not seen the gentleman. 1 1/’. lighter. 1 You went to Dr John M'Phcrson?— Yes; that is what 1 was trying to tell this gentleman (meaning the judge) just now. (Laughter.) You refused to tell Dr M'Pherson your age?—l said it is no use telling ■ccors fairy talcs about ages, because thev all know. Did you tell him your age?—No, I thought he was joking. “ There is no evidence,” Mr Justice Maxwell said, “ that the defendant knew the horse was accustomed to bite. Moreover, there is uo evidence that the horse was accustomed to bite, and the law is you must show first of all that tic- animal has those habits. If it has not those habits there is an end of the matter. If, on the other hand, it has, you must further show that the person who kept it knew it, and that has not ucen done.”