IN THE COURTS.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10743, 14 November 1928, Page 2

IN THE COURTS.

CLAIM AGAINST DENTIST. (Press Association.) HAMILTON, Nov. 13. An unusual claim against a dentist for £l2l 19s 6d for an' operation allegedly negligently performed was heard at Hamilton before Magistrate Wilson to-day. Plaintiff, Mrs Janet Lyburn, sued H. W. Frost, Ltd., whose employee, J. E. Kirkland, had performed the operation. Kirkland had intormed plaintiff, who desired a new denture, that a uap of skin on the lower jaw should be removed. After the operation, blood gushed from her mouth, plaintiff alleged. Dr Douglas was called in by Kirkland, and asked: “What have you been doing? Have you over seen an artery cut'like this?’* Dr Douglas stitched the wound and later Kirkland removed the stitches. A further operation was i' quired, because the gum and cheek were adhering. She was in hospital seven days. Two doctors gave evidence in support of plaintiff. The case was adjourned.

CLAIM AGAINST RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. GIRL AWARDED £286. fPreBB Association.) NAPIER, Nov. 13. In the Supreme Court to-day the case of Jean Cowan, v. the King, arising out of a collision between a Government railway bus and a lorry in which petitioner was travelling, was concluded. The full claim of £286 14s 6d wag granted. The claim was a sequel to ah accident on Waitangi bridge last year, when pupils of the Technical College were • returning from their annual picnic, petitioner’s arm being seriously injured.

MARRIED WOMEN SHOPLIFTERS. NARROW ESCAPE FROM TWO YEARS’ GAOL. CPreaK Association.) AUCKLAND, Nov. 13 Mary Madeline, Jessie Thompson, 35, and Ada May Edgecombe, 45. two married women, both employed as domestics, admitted extensive and systematic thefts from city shops m the Auckland Police Court to-day, when they jointly pleaded guiltv to stealing goods to the value of £lO5, Mrs Edgecombe alone to the theft of goods valued at £3B. When Mrs Edgecombe’s house was searched stolen goods worth £l4O were found there. But for the fact that one of the accused was in ill-health, tile magistrate, Mr F. !v. Hunt, . said he would have sentenced them both to two years’ imprisonment. Mrs Edgecombe was fined £4(7, _ and Mis Thompson £2O. 10 days being allowed in which to pay.

TROUBLE ON STEAMER MEN FINED FOR. REFUSING TO WORK ?Pre*s Association-' AUCKLAND, Nov, 13. Ei'dit seamen and seven firemen of the. steamer Port Darwin were charged at the Police Court with disobeying a lawful command given by the master on November 10, when the vessel was? between Nev. Plymouth and Auckland. Counsel for the company said that, on the way from Timaru to New Plymouth, the coal in the fore bunker had become heated. The waterside workers at New Plymouth refused to shift it. unless paid higher wages on account of the fumes and the heat. When the ship went to sea. the firemen and sailors also refused the dutv, making it necessary for the officers and apprentices to do the work. He believed coercion had been brought to hear on the sailors. As the ship was sailing to-morrow he asked that thoimen should not be imprisoned. Counsel for the men said the affair originated some months ago. The chief engineer had promised the men the order would not be given. However, he could do nothing but plead guilty. The. trimmers would have done the work if paid the same wages as the watersidersl “If there is one thing be observed, it is the order of officers on ships at sea”, remarked Mr Hunt S.M., as he fined the trimmers two days’ pay and the sailors one day.

EX-CONSTABLE'S CONVICTION LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED Association^ AUCKLAND. Nov. 13. Leave to apply to the Court of Appeal fox* a new trial in the case of Francis James Carroll, one of the two ex-constables convicted on a charge of arson in . connection with the explosion and lire on August 29 at Carroll’s shop in Napier street, was refused by Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court. The contention on behalf of the prisoner was that there was no evidence to justify the verdict of arson against him and no proof that he committed the crime or counselled, aided or abetted its committal. The Judge said, the only possible conclusion from the facts was that Carroll intended the destruction ot premises and contents by fire and that his presence at, and encouragement of the removal of the goods from, the shop amounted to aiding and abetting in the commission of an offence.

LEVEL CROSSING FATALITY CASE AGAINST CROWN* FAILS i Press Association.! AUCKLAND, Nov. 13. • The railway accident at Argyle' street level crossing, between Kingsland and Morningside, on December 24 last, by which Mrs Ethel Brittain lost her life and her son George, aged three, sustained severe injury, was the subject of a suit for compensation in the Supreme Court. The action was brought in tho form of a petition .of right., George Samuel Brittain, husband of the deceased, sued on behalf of himself and h ; s two .children, Cyril aged four, and George aged three, for £2OOO compensation. arid George Brittain, through his father, as guardian ad litem, for £750 with respect to his personal injuries, and G. S. Brittain also claimed £SO for medical expenses incurred. The petition contained allegations of inadequacy of the precautions for the safety of the public at the crossing and failure to give sufficient warnings. of the approach of the train. The defence filed by the Crown was a general denial of the statements in the petition, with the alternative allegation of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in not keeping a sufficient lookout. At the conclusion of the evidence. Mr Justice Blair said that h© could not see that there was evidence of negligence on the part of the. Railway Department. He could form no other cohclusion than that Mrs Brittain could have seen the train , approaching had she looked in its direction. The - train was travelling at the ordinary speed, slowing down on its approach' to Morningside station, and its whistle was sounded. It had been established that, the crossing was dangerous but, of course, all crossing were dangerous. It was .for the supplicants to prove negligence on the part of . the Railway Department* and, in the absence of that proof, ho considered it his duty to withdraw the euso from the jury. The jury was accordingly discharged and judgment entered •• for the Crown, with cosjfcp V "