COURT NEWS

Hokitika Guardian, 22 June 1938, Page 2

COURT NEWS

ADMISSION OF LIABILITY

JUDGE HEARS LEGAL ARGUMENT. (Per Press Association-—Copyright). CHRISTCHURCH, June ‘2l. Legal argument on the admissability of certain evidence in a ease to be heard in the Supreme Court wars heard by Mr Justice Northcroft this morning. The case was adjourned sine die in preparation for the case between the South Island Motor Union Mutual Insurance Society, and Minsons Ltd. and others. His Honour was asked to decide whether a letter written by Arthur William Minson, the- driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident, was an admission of liability. Hi's Honour was also asked to decide whether Minson oould be defined ns the owner of a car or the agent of the owner. Mr W. ,T. Sim. who- appeared for the Insurance Societv, said that the Insurance Society had settled out of court and without urejudice a claim arising out of an accident in which Emma Jane p.nle was iniured by a car driven by Arthur William Minson and said to be owned bv Minsons Ltd. The Insurance S-'cietv now sought to recover from the defendants £1.200. on the grounds that the driver of the car had, contrarv to t h e of poliet, written a letter which might- be constructed bv the court as an admission of liability

'The question that dL"'d bo subm ,+ - tod to the jury, said Air Sim. won hi he " hethethe driver wrote, the letter which could not be denied: whether it was an admission of liability; nliet.hoi be was the owner iff the car, or whether bo was Ibe authorised agent of the owner. The facts could not be contradicted.

It. was purely a question of law. Mr M. Greason submitted that, the document in onostinn was not. a letter written by Minson to n fhird nartv. but a memorandum which be .jotted down sbnrtlv after the accident so as to record the facts while they were still fresh in his mind.

Tf it came into the orymsition’s bands bv Minson’s design, said His Honour, «uoh n letter became n common motion, but if it was an affidavit, that chnvrrod bands by some unknown means, the question was still in doubt. j\lr fkresson said that Mr Sims’ nnnlieation was permissible only if the facts were agreed upon, which they were not,.

Tll adjourning the annlieat'on s”m> die. His Honour said that as tile case now stood be would be hound to remcf the application, but ho would stand it over for the parties to consult. A costly litigation might thus be avoidmL

reaction was to promptly accuse the National Party of responsibility. “Wo are cherishing the original document,” the Minister said, and one day it may find its place in a museum of political curiosities.” If the Hon. P. Fraser wishes to cherish this sort of rubbish, and use it for ammunition in the coming fight, possibly the following, which was received by a well-known Auckland resident, may also interest him. This circular,. which is said to have been widely distributed by certain supporters of the Socialist Labour Party, after telling what a • trade union is and saying a deal derogatory ol the “capitalist boss” proceeds: “The wealth of the world is yours, when will you tear the veil from your eyes, and see all that belongs to you. Beware of the Tory and Liberal reformer and his sops, 110 only reforms his wealth; aiid lie deforms you politically and industrially. Their age-old reforms comprise mass murder, by gun, bomb, or bayonet, and slow starvation. Beware of the Hamiltons, Professor Algie, and the Doidge type of reformers, slave camps, starvation, and rags and tatters are their objective For you whilst they themselves strut around bedecked in gold and silver. Protect your Labour Government. Perhaps Mr Fraser may care to cherish this and give it a place in his museum of political curiosities, ns illustrating the mentality of certain of his enthusiastic Communist supporters in 1933. It would he “playing it very low down” however, to suggest that the responsibility Tor this idiotic effusion rested with the Labour Party. Will the honourable gentleman please note?