DISTRICT COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5679, 12 June 1879, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday, June 11. (Before his Honor Judge Mansford and a jury of four.) NEILSON V. THE WELLINGTON .TRAMWAY COMPANY. This was an action to recover £2OO as damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by Mrs. Neilaon through the negligence of the Tramway Company. Mr. Ollivier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers defended. Mr. Ollivier, in opening the case, stated that the plaintiff was a passenger in the tram cars! on the 10th of December. When the cars were rounding the corner of Sussex-street and Yiviau-street it ran off the line. Mrs. Neilson, who had a child in her arms, was thrown forward, and her system severely shaken. One of her knees was so badly hurt that she could not walk. She had been in the habit of working at the steam laundry, for which she received 30s. a week. She and her husband had to go into private lodgings, as she was unable to perform her domestic duties. The action had not been brought sooner because Mrs. Neilson was near her confinement. At the time of the accident the curve where the tram was turned over was being altered. Mrs. Neilson had to be taken home in a grocer’s cart. Mr. and Mrs. Neilson gava evidence in support of what Mr. Ollivier had stated in his opening remarks. During cross-examination Mrs.'Neilsoh said that her hip had been strained. • She had been laid up in bed for three weeks. Dr. Harding was attending her during that time. Sophia Johnston stated that she was employed to do household work for three weeks while tho plaintiff was laid up. Plaintiff was suffering from pains in her hip. Witness was receiving ss. a day to look after the house. Plaintiff was able to do ordinary work before she met with tho accident. She was a strong woman.

Dr. Harding stated that he had attended the plaintiff, who was suffering from injuries to her hip. Witness had examined the hip, but could not detect any outward symptoms. There might be some internal injury. It was just possible that she might get worse.

Sarah Baker stated she was at an interview between plaintiff and Mr. Jackson, then manager of the company. At that interview Mr. Jackson told plaintiff to keep quiet, and he would pay all expenses. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Travers painted out to the jury that no evidence had been adduced, to show that the carriage ran off the line through any negligence on the part of the Tramway Company. The ver f fact of the carriage going off the line clearly proved that it was the result of an accident and not of negligence. , Before they (the jury) could give the plaintiff a verdict they must be clearly satisfied that there had been negligence. There was no doubt that Mrs. Neiison was entitled to a little sympathy, and the company, feeling that, although they were not liable by law, had come to the conclusion to render her some assistance, and alleviate her in her suffering. They (the company) bad provided her with medical attendance. The following evidence for the defence was then taken : Dr. Diver stated that he had visited the plaintiff. He ordered her to go'to bed, as she was near her confinement. He examined her hip and knee, but could detect no marks or bruises. The only fear witness had was that the accident might bring ,on premature labor. Neiison told witness that he attributed no blame to the company. S. Broifti, contractor, stated he had mined the place where the accident happened. The curves were being altered. He found the line was level and in good order. The oar going off the line was the result of an accident. ':■■■■ In answer to his Honor witness said that if the trench had not been between the line the accident would not have been at all serious. Robert Greenfield, manager of the company, said that the couplings in use .were very suit-: able for going round sharp, curves. The oars, very frequently go off the line. Had it not been for the trench spoken of there would have been no accident. . A. Fisher, guard,, gave ooroborrative evidence. Henry Harvey, who lived next door to Mrs! Neiison, stated that he saw her outside the' house a fortnight after the accident. She was going about with crutches. • This was.all the evidence. Mr.'Travers pointed out that the guard bn the day in question had examined the carriages and curves, and had found them in good order. It was late In the afternboon when the accident: took place,, and there had been previously twenty-five trains passing over the same curve before the one in question went off the line. It had been shown that they were travelling at a reasonable speed. What the cause of the accident was no one could rightly find out. It was nothing new for the carriages to go off the line. He pointed out to the jury, the only question they had to decide was whether there had been negligence or not. Mr. Ollivier, in reply, said that the mere fact of the car. going off the line showed negligence on the part of the company. It was admitted that the cars frequently ran off the line. Mr. Greenfield, the manager, stated in his evidence that about two cars a week go off, and he imagined apparently that the danger to the limbs and lives of the citizens of Wellington did not call for any explanation. He (Mr. Ollivier) thought it was marvellous that there had not been more serious accidents. He submitted that his client was entitled to full damages. •• _ ; The jury, after a few minutes deliberation, returned, a verdict for the plaintiff for £35 damages.