Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

AN EXPENSIVE BULLET.

THE NGATAPA SHOOTING CASn.

VICTIM AWARDED £6O DAMAGES

Tim case of Jean Parsons, of Patutabi (Mr. Barnard) v. Harry F. Hill (Mr Stock), a Haim for £OO for medical expenses and damages caused through defendant accidentally shooting plaintiff in the back with a rifle bullet at Ngatapa in November last was resumed before Air W . A. Barton. S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterdav morning. The case bad been adjourned m. order to permit of an X-ray examination being made to determine whether a further operation was necessary or not. . ~,,,, Dr. James Clive Collins stated that lie-had examined the patient at the Hospital on Saturday last, and was unable to discover the bullet. < The bullet evidently was lying on or in tlie region of a bone, causing merging or the photographic shadows, which lie was not able to differentiate with the ovc. ' All- Barnard: In the event of nbeing necessary to remove the bullet, what would have to be done ?

Witness: If 1 were going to remove a bullet,! should like an X-ray photograph taken. ' , Counsel: Where would such a photograph have to be taken? Witness said that they had an Arav apparatus at the Gisborne .Hospital. but the chances of obtaining a good photograph were improved if the work were done bv a man who was taking photographs frequently.. He sent ail cases of which be required a lasting impression to Auckland. In reply to His Worship, witness said that lie plaintiff was suffering definite pain. How far this pain was actual and how far imaginary could only be decided by an X-ray photoBarnard: The actual cost of going to Auckland to have a photograph taken would be r.cout six oi seven guineas. His Worship said that the question was how much further expense would bo incurred. The pa I intiff was ceitaiulv entitled to receive some compensation for the loss of health she had suffered ns »a result of tlio acciuenf. He would access the amounts as follows: First operation £2O, cost of X-rev examination £lO. compensation for loss of health £3O. ment would, therefore, be entered tor plaintiff for £6O, with costs £8 11s.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19150306.2.51

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3871, 6 March 1915, Page 7

Word Count
359

AN EXPENSIVE BULLET. Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3871, 6 March 1915, Page 7

AN EXPENSIVE BULLET. Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3871, 6 March 1915, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert