CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12532, 18 April 1935, Page 7

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

, CAR AND MOTOR' CYCLE. COLLIDE. appeal DISMISSED. 'Cross Association). WELLINGTON, April 17 The Court of Appeal this, morning, in • delivering jt« judgment tn the' case of Bourko v Jessop, wn s unani-* nnous that, the appeal should be-<lis-vjjilssed.. judgments were delivered - v all members’ of' the Bench. Sir Michael Myers sa-icl* that there jjg a duty on the appellant to have kept a- proper look out, and the evidence showed that he nad ’failed to do that. In his opinion, there was sufficient, evidence of negligence on the part of the" appellant independent of his brother’s negligence npon which the findings'of’the jury could- he supported and for this reason 'alone the appeal should be dismissed. Moreover, there was , also evidence of a joint and common purpose to commit an unlawful act, and each of the brothers was guilty of breaking the Jaw in riding an unlighted vehicle. Mr Justice Smith iwas of the opinion that the,only question open for the court’s consideration was the question of the identification of tho appellant in bis brother’s negligence He considered that thd evidence established that either appellant and iris brother were principal and agent or that they were engaged in a comfon illegaL action, and were hence joint feasors. In. either event, the appellant was responsible for his brother’s negligence, and the appeal must fail. Mr Justice Johnst.o n held that there was ample evidence from .which the jury could find that the appellant was guilty of negligence, independently of his brother, as also did Mr Justice Fair who in addition concurred with the conclusions of Mr Justice Smith on the. question, of identification. No order was made as to costs. The-'ease arose out of a " collision which occurred near Eitham in 1933 between a motor car driven by Ha.rold Jessop grid a motor cycle on which the appellant George. William Bourke, of Eitham, slaughterman was pillion riding, Bourke subsequently sued' Jessop for damages and in Juno 1933, was awarded £465. On the matter being referred to the Appeal Court a now trial was ordered. This took place in February, 1934, when the jury found for the respondent-.