A GHASTLY CLAIM.

Hastings Standard, Issue 57, 2 July 1896, Page 4

A GHASTLY CLAIM.

THE BRUNN'ER MLNE ACCIDENT. MANAGER SUED FOR COST OF COFFINS. SOME ONE HAS BLUNDERED. [Feoji Ocb Ov.-\ Corkespoxdemt.] Geeyjiouth, Juno 21. One of the meanest oi mean actions ever before a C'onrt of Justice "was beard yesterd, \ 'n th • S.M. Court. The -hor' - :/ i- : An acc-ident-took pi ic.> at Ii n> i?i on the morning of the 2ot t eh, of which no doubt you are well aware, and by which 63 unfortunate fellow creatures ■were hurried into e tern it v. I need not dwell upon the hct-roj - rf tl ' scene and oi t' I mi r xtnl 1 the manner m winch tne inn 1 f o help was i 1 1 i p t j thronghou N v / I m l 1 tl 11 ■ "was one m 11 Tn nme i which the i [lr sio i rcc " 1 wis owned bv a conmanv named the Grewm nth F ii t <. 'i Ih'hn" aid C i! pm\ of which onf, A .i-* ' t'oijill l manej.n i-dm-etor. {it t f, «. . nt ol th mon rnt no C i !, t due i«r ti 1 ' an r h f- co ild 1 1 | <t ■ - > . i vh'•"< )f r | ) _ it. u v -""* i . lit it j mit* r-= !': >' \\~ ■'} r it i »-> i j Ho ■> - i an 1 the } hi 1t) 1 u 1 T >F > i nl ei L tn r r- an 1 i 1 ~ k in Gr \ an 1 ini l >'j* 1 t'nii to link 1 eo<ii - or '1 f r»h ni* "> tli ci a-- 1 \«i«i o 1 i > lu waited on an »nder:akor—a w-.•ri.in.r----nun—rruiu 1 T< hn H >n n th mi 141 •c t th. i Jit, and asked hi: i if be had any - »!!-, an 1 to -> nl up as many a 1? possible. The next raornmg an employee m thv. Gr \ V....- y ( Company, nam*d M.utin (the Gr. _> Yilbv Com pativ wai doin* tl bus n» s*, r [ tbt Point Eiizakth Comj.am ) nc ' >il a message from Mr Franklyn, the acting mamg» rof the C oinpun nam (Mr Bishop, the run _r* r. b seriously injured by the explosion) to hurry up tin coffins a* «oozi a-'po--ible. This Martin did. acting also under instructions frn i Mr th*agent of the company m Greymonth. in who?e office Martin wa-; employed, ifr !>(>-..ri'i e:d 1 o: d "h- in-vu">-tions to Mr Martin. Mr Dootran also ptated that h< nuiud in-* from (u'lr:- V .v* ■* 'a* * , >* r i>, but who lt.srruend biv be did not know. II 11 r, t* t nlu ID wtrei aa le and Cuim.u-d • 'K P .-n. L„/ Compam. who ti.ok dth\< rr and paid : freight. The jtw f« How ■, -w* re put ; into the cofnud ,xrd : sr. liut a -.inimrL t ! r -hi .n 1 T\ i agents of the company a«injiKed >;v- ! ir.g the orb ri * i ■; c- r* tin ( \u < *. -ud expresdly stipulatoi that the company ! would not lie responsible for the mounting, btea.-t phte-, <>r furnit'ir'\ only the bare shell- ; an I on tbc?v instruction? thi- imfjrturj.ite under- . taker acretl. Ib- was as the only | & struggling tradesman. There was ! no denying the orders. There was no j a|bKD|l at denying th&4 the chargos I 7"I "

wore exce-'-ive—iliev were onlv »0s - i i ' >T;ne r i i v,I iii- un l-CO'.ild not lose ' i j v It to Mi a i ii j 11 I 1 i\n. TI eli i ii 1 t:i q. t iii ui a cheque, as he 1 t ail right. Mr Bishop co , a - «'.an it. and the accounts ' wr> - i m to the Wellington olhce. lb el 4 't never came, and the nnf n i' )t a i l:-r;aker being pressed for n 1 took action. I The (h fendant company through , t!.- ■ oi 31r Be, re (Guinness ii 1 I tii _ i-i-;i*. r.u-<d three nontfj' t-. lirst that tiie a cents had i o in l i i*itv for ordering the coffins, and i ti is he v;as borne out by Mr MT'ongaii's sworn evidence in Wellington : secondly that the sum being over €lO was not recoverable under the Statute of Frauds, not being in writing ; also that it was provided for in the- Coal jliiks Act of I*9l. Tbi i 1 'nt'if c nn-;el Mr Joyce nn tth 1f i + nt'on, and urged tin t'l i i f hv company by their ii ii_ ug ti nverv from the i il\ t' ut'y ii'i d paying freight, a I >i i j m ' f i tu.tr articles, constituted liability. The S.M.. Mr Stratford, while admitting that the plaintiff had a good case in equity, upheld that the company was not responsible for the action of tlitrir agents and non- suited the plaintiff. You can hardly conceive the amount of feeling this action has caused. I was lalking to another undertaker this evaiir.g who has made t twenty - three coffins, and lie said ; he thu ig 1 t that Mr ilercn had sued the 10 1 g iarty, although this was not -d in Court. He said that he also re rtd an order from the Hon Jam' , Ivu on behalf of the Premier, to make the coffins, and this, I understand is the instruction, that was given to the other undertaker. So who is responsible ? Are these poor men to be done out of their hardearned mcaey, or what is the result going to be ? Anyhow, it is a mean and contemptible proceeding throughout.