INFECTIOUS DISEASE CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11654, 19 October 1923, Page 8

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CASE

JURY’S FINDING UPSETT BY FULL I COURT. ! JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT COM- ! PAXY. | The Full Court decided yesterday that I j udgment should bo given to the defendi ant company in the infectious disease Haim which has been before the court j for the past two days. | Mr Justice Hosking presided, and with I him were Mr Justice Herdman, Mr Justice Salroond, and Mr Justice Reed. The plaintiff in the case was a waternine worker named John Baldwin Adams, represented by Mr M. Myers, K.C.. with whom appeared Mr O. C. Mnzengarb, while the Wellington Patent Slip Co., Ltd., the defendants in the action, were represented by Mr C. A. L Treadwell. Adams had been employed by the company to handle certain goods, including mattresses, sent from a ves<sel for reconditioning. It was submitted that he 1 had contracted a certain infectious j disease iri this connection, and according--1 ly-damages were claimed. The matter : came before Mr Justice Salmond «nd a j jury. The latter awarded Adams the i mi to of ,£127 10s. The defendant company strenuously denied this contention. It was submitted that there had been no evidence that (ho plaintiff had contracted this dlsMea from the ledding. As a second defence it wß<> put forward that even if he had contracted the disease through handling the bedding as suggested, there was no evidmice of any negligence on the part of the oefenda t company. It was contended that they were entitled to have the plaintiff nonsuited under the circumstances. In addition there Iras an altirnative plea for a new trial. The matter was finally referred to the Pull Court. Mr Justice Hoiking said it was for th* plaintiff to prove that he had contracted the disease as a result of the negligence of the company. He was of opinion that the evidence did not justify such a verdict being found. To his mind there was nothing more than conjecture In support of the plaintiff in this contention. Under the circumstances Judgment would he for the defendant company. Mr Justice Hordman agreed, but went further, by stating that he was not satisfied that the company was bound in duty to sterilise these particular mattresses. He agieed that the injury had not been caused through negligence. Mr Justice Salmond and Mr Justice Reed expressed similar Tiews. Mr Myers pointed out that judgment could not be given in favour of tbs defendant, so the court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff fo.* «£37, for wage® owing. The judgment was given for the defendant company in every other respect, and cents were also allowed.