DEATH OF FARMER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20426, 30 November 1929, Page 16

DEATH OF FARMER.

KNOCKED DOWN BY LORRY.

DAMAGES FOR FAMILY.

JURY 'AWARDS SUM OF £940

[BY TELEGRAPH.-I—OWN 1 —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] NEW PLYMOUTH, Friday.

A claim for £2500 damages was made against Louis Albert Sarten, of Waitara, in the Supreme Court to-day by George Taylor, as executor under the will of the late John Poletti. The claim arose from the death of Poletti, which was caused through his being knocked down by a lorry driven by an employee of 'defendant, Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. J. H. Sheat for defendant.

In outlining the case Mr. Quilliam said it was brought by the executor on behalf of the widow and children of deceased. There was no question of liability involved as defendant had admitted liability, and the only question for the jury was tho amount of damages to be awarded. Counsel mentioned that the claim could be made only on accr '.nt of pecuniary loss suffered by the family on account of the death of Poletti. lie submitted that it would be shown that they had suffered very serious pecuniary damage, and it was on that account they asked for compensation. Deceased had been a farmer, carrying on business at Bell Block, continued counsel. He met his death through being run down by an unlighted motor-lorry, owned by Sarten, on June 11. He was a native of Italy, but came to New Zealand many years ago. By tho terms of deceased's will the executor was required to realise the estate and to have the proceeds invested for the benefit of the widow for her life and thereafter divided between the two sons and four daughters. The jury would readily understand that an assot such as the farm which was producing revenue would be much moro valuable than as an asset which had to be sold.

The executors had found it impossible to sell the farm at anything approaching a reasonable price, and he had applied to the Court and received permission to carry on the farm for a further 12 months.

Mr. Sheat admitted the liability of defendant to pay reasonable damages, but submitted that the amount claimed was not reasonable. It was pointed out that an endeavour had been made to obtain from witnesses some idea whether deceased had been adding to his estate during the past 10 years, but no evidence on that point was forthcoming. Counsel also suggested that it was unreasonable to say that to an estate, the net value of which was about £SOOO, tieceased would have added another £2500 worth of property in the remainder of his life. The jury was also entitled to take into account the fact that some bad investments had been made and that it Poletti had lived longer he might have made other unprofitable deals. In conclusion counsel said defendant was not seeking to avoid paying what' he ought reasonably to pay. Summing up Mr. Justice MacGregor said it could be accepted generally that when the owner and director of a business „snch as this was suddenly killed, as he' had been, there was some pecuniary loss. What that loss was- he could not say nor what amount of damages the jury should award. Personally he thought the amount of £2500 was far too much. The jury awarded plaintiff £940 damages with costs on scale.