Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image

In the Supreme Court on Saturday Mr ; Justice Chapman gave judgment in regard to the application, of Mr Hadlield, heard on bcptcrabcr 24th, for a special jury in the case of William Bennett v. the Hawke’ s Bay Farmers’ Meat Co.', Ltd. The plaintiff, an emof the defendant company, claimed 41,1000 damages for injury to lus hip joint,) etc., and to his nervous system as the result of an accident at the company’s freezing works. The special jury -wasi applied for on the grounds (I) alleged ■ defects in the company’s machinery; and (2) the alleged injury to 1 -; the plaintiff’s nervous system in matters that could only be determined by such a jury. Mr P. J. O’Regan; on behalf: of the plaintiff, op-, posed the application, saying that a special jury was a class institution and was considered by the workers as very undesirable in a case of employee • employer, especially in a place like Napier, where everybody knew everybody else. His Honour ruled that the first ground was insufficient for the grant-, ing of a special jury. But with regard urtho claim in respect of a permanent injury to the nervous system he could not distinguish the case from that of Bradshaw v. Mason, Strut hers, and 00.. Ltd., in which he had allowed a special iurv. He had no reason to alter the opinion that he expressed in that case. He had given the fullest consideration to the further [ arguments > gainst the application based on tin. circumstance that this was an action by an employee against an employer •'id on the comparative smallness of a special jury list. But, having considered all the rirrumstonors. he had come to the conclusion that the defendant had made out grounds shewing that expert knowledge was required and that no sufficient grounds cxisteo 1 for exercising his dhcretion hv refusing to grant a special jury His Hanair'fvc an order for a special jury | accordingly. ~ I Nip that cold in the bud hy treating it 1 instantly ‘with ’’NAZOL.” Taken on 1 sugar or inhaled. "NAZOL” never fails. 60 doses cost Is fid.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19151011.2.47.3

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9171, 11 October 1915, Page 6

Word Count
350

Page 6 Advertisements Column 3 New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9171, 11 October 1915, Page 6

Page 6 Advertisements Column 3 New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9171, 11 October 1915, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert