APPEAL AFTER THREE TRIALS

Northern Advocate, 25 March 1937, Page 9

APPEAL AFTER THREE TRIALS

Sequel To Collision On Rimutakas [Per Press Association. — Copyright.} WELLINGTON ,This Day. Few cases in New. Zealand history have had a longer or more intricate history than the action of Thomas Walton Robertson, of Wellington, linesman, against Ling Sing, merchant, of Greytown. | A collision occurred on the Snake 1 Bend on the Rimutaka Hill, on February 18, 1935, between Robertson’s motor cycle and a motor lorry belonging to Ling Sing, when Robertson was seriously injured. Later Robertson filed a claim in the Supreme Court for damages alleging negligence on the part of the lorry driver. There have been three trials before a jury. At the first trial the jury failed to agree and a second trial was ordered. At the next trial the jury found for the plaintiff, but the defendant then moved for judgment, notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, and on this motion being moved for argument before a bench of six judges of the Supreme Court a further trial was ordered. Appeal To Court Of Appeal. , At the third trial the jury again found for the plaintiff, awarding him £1463 damages. Plaintiff and defen--1 dant both moved for judgment and the matter was argued before the Chief Justice, who dismissed the conquestion was whether the respondent, judgment in the plaintiff’s favour in accordance with the jury’s verdict. From that judgment Ling Sing is appealing to the Court of Appeal, contending that either judgment should have been entered in his favqur or a further trial ordered. When the case was called Mr. W. E. Leicester, for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection to the appeal being heard, submitting that it was out of time. The court reserved its decision on the preliminary objection raised. “Not A Question For Jury. Counsel for the appellant, in commencing his main address, stated that the whole question to be considered was whether the respondent’s breach of the motor vehicle regulations, in failing to keep as far as practicable to the left was conclusive evidence of contributory negligence. Mr. Justice Ostler: But surely that is a question for a jury. Counsel; I submit not, and that it will be the basis of the submissions. Court Reserves Decision. In presenting the case for the respondent;- counsel stated that, at the last trial of the case, an important question was wether the respondent, Robertson, had been gulty of negligence contributing to the accident. The jury had found that the respondent -had not been guilty. It was ax’gued by counsel; (1) That the question as to whether the respondent had been guilty of contributory negligence had properly been submitted to the jury. (2) That the jury’s verdict of “no negligence,” as far as the respondentwas concerned, was borne out by the evidence.

(3) That the verdict was not so defective that the respondent was not deentitled to., judgment. The court resrved its decision.