D0YLE V. CANDLE COMPANY

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4304, 13 March 1901, Page 3

DOYLE V. CANDLE COMPANY

WORKMAN’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. - , In the Supreme Court yesterday, before AJr Justice Cooper, there was called on the case of James Henry Doyle, fireman, v. the New Zealand Candle Company’, a claim for damages for injuries allaged to have been received in the company’s works at Kaiwarra through its default. Air Wilford, with him Mr Dalziell, appeared for the plaintiff, and Air Skerrett for the defendant company. His Honor pointed out that the o Qinal claim was for £3OO, and that the case was accordingly set down to be tried by a special jury of four. There was now an amended statement of claim, by which £IOOO damages were claimed. A claim for £IOOO damages could only be heard by a special jury of twelve.,,! Air Wilfrid said that the information which led _to the increase of the claim had only just been received. Air Skerrett said tha writ in the action was issued on tho 33td Ootober. After discussion. His Honor .said that if the view taken by Air Justice Richmond and Mr Jus*, tme Conolly in similar oases we* porreqt. tho plaintiff could nob ip tiie present action claim £IOOO damages. At any rate ope of fwo'ponrsqs must npw bo taken. Tha plaintiff must either discontinue or a.n adjournment must be granted. Air Skwetl objected tp an adjournment, , Air Wilford, after consultation, said the plaintiff proposed not to forego any part of his claim for £IQOD, Air Skerrett said the company must insist on its rights, ns it was prepared to go to triaUat once. He submitted that the plaintiff must either go to trial on the original statement of claim or discontinue; Mr Wilford: In case of a discontinuance, the plaintiff would be in the position of not being able to avail himself of tha statute. His Honor That is a difficulty, ho doubt. The injury is alleged to have been suffered on the 10th August. A discontinuance would operate as a discharge. I think the fairest course is to adjourn the hearing till the next sittings, ordering the plaintiff to pay costs. The plaintiff will still have to face the'question of whether or not he can increase his claim to £IOOO. I very, much doubt if he can. I would recommend that the question be tested before tho trial of the action. The case was adjourned till,.the 20th May, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay £7 7s professional costs, and costs of summoning special jury and witnesses’ expedites to be taxed by the Registrar, costs to be paid on or before the 13th Alay.

The special jury summoned for yesterday were discharged from attendance..