SUPREME COURT

Southland Times, Issue 17968, 8 March 1917, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

WEDNESDAV, MARCH T. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Sim). His Honour took his seat at HI a.m. CIVIL BUSIXESS. Archibald McEachern v. Hugh McKay XlcLe.od. a claim for £f>oo damages for false and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the boundary of a farm purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant. Mr E. R. Bowler appeared for the plaintiff. and Mr W. A. Stout for the defendant. The hearing of this case was resumed. Evidence for the plaintiff was given by N. Townsend, A. A. Mac Gibbon, \V m. Pryde, and A. H. Altken. In opening the case for the defence, Mr Stout said that the defence was a straight-out denial of any misrepresentation. The plaintiff, when he inspected the property, bad bad the boundaries pointed out to him, and a map had been at his disposal when, and after, he inspected the property, he required it or expressed a wish to see it. Mr Stout said that he would produce evidence to say that there was no misrepresentation whatsoever. Even if that had been so, counsel contended, the damages claimed ■were outrageous. Evidence for the defence was given by the defendant. Hugh McLeod, Geo. McEeod, Alex. McLeod. Chns. Mclntosh. James Fleming, and H. J. Middleton.

Mr Stout and Mr Bowler addressed the jury, after which his Honour addressed the jury, going exoaustively into the evidence, as well as thoroughly instructing the jury on points of law. In the course of his remarks his Honour said that if the plaintiff had to succeed, the jury had to be satisfied that misrepresentation had taken place, and that the defendant knew of it: also that the plaintiff had acted on such representation. If they were satisfied on that score, the question of damages then arose, and plaintiff was entitled to reasonable compensation. The jury retired at 4.2 V p.m., and at 6.15 p.m. announced that by a majority decision they had decided to award the plaintiff £2OO. The Judge entered a verdict accordingly, with costs according to scale. A COMPENSATION CASE.

Thomas Mence, of Bluff, sued the N.Z. Shipping Co. for £2034 11s fid. for damages and personal injuries owing to an accident sustained by the defendant, ■whilst receiving goods into a truck from the Remuera.

Mr W. C. MacGregor and Mr Eustace .Ttussell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr S. Solomon. K.C., and Mr W. A. Stout for the defendant.

The following? jury was empannelled : Duncan Marshall (Foreman), Gordon Glennie, David George, J. S. Anchor, G. Taylor, Andrew Lyon. John Buchanan. Ernest Philpott ffra. Allison, Robert Cook, Jas. Derbie. and N. W. Cook. Mr MacGregor said that the action ■was one for persona! injuries. Plaintiff •was a wharf labourer, was 58 years of age. and for 36 years had lived in New Zealand. He was a steady and reliable ■worker. The accident happened on June 6, 1914, when plaintiff, who was employed by the Railway Department, was, with a mate, receiving goods in a truck from the Remuera. He was struck by a packet of goods, which fell and struck the plaintiff owing to the negligence of the company, the plaintiff sustaining injuries to his arm, shoulder and collarbone. As a result the plaintiff was unable to follow hU* usual occupation, and. in his present condition, had no hope of doing so. He had suffered intense pain, and had contracted expenses which counsel detailed. The defendant company had filed two statements of defence, and in the latter one had admitted the accident, bat denied that permanent injury had been sustained, or that pain or Inconvenience or expense, as alleged, had been caused. Mr MacGregor then briefly recited the .facts attending the happening. The plaintiff, he said, had been working in a railway true* alongside the Remuera. There were two boxes in the truck, and Mence was stooping down between them, when suddenly he was struck a tremendous blow, being knocked senseless and sustaining serious Injuries. The object which struck plaintiff was a big bale of cloth, which was being swung from the ship, and when it -fell had been hoisted fully 30 feet high. Fortunately, at the time the plaintiff had been stooping, the cases getting the bulk of the weight, otherwise the man would have been killed outright. As It was when the' man was picked up senseless it was thought that he was dead. The big bale, weighing 3 cwt, had actually burst, owing to the impact, yet. the defendant company denied that plaintiff had received severe injuries. Some of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff had been made right; but plaintiffs shoulder was bad, and although he had undergone massage the pain persisted. Being a left-handed man. the plaintiff ■was most seriously affected. The shoulder had been put under the X-Rays twice, and on the latter occasion it was discovered that a stray fragment of bone bad made union in the wrong place. It might be possible, by an operation, to rectify metiers, but meantime movement in the joint was restricted and permanently so. For twelve months plaintiff had been quite unfit to resume work as a wharf labourer, and he was now in the position of being stranded and without a job. As he was a man of 58 years of age. and could not say when he could resume his usual employment, the position was serious for himself and his wife. Plaintiff knew no other work, and wharf work was heavy work and skilled work. The. only question the jury had to decide was how much damages the X>laintiff was entitled to for the loss he had undoubtedly sustained. The jury had to decide: (1) Did the plaintiff sustain serious injury to his arm. shoulder and collarbone?; (31 has he been unable to work since then?; and (3) will he be permanently incapacitated? Mr MacGregor stressed the amount of expense incurred by the plaintiff, and read a letter from the company admitting that the plaintiff had sustained injury, but denying liability. It was a matter as to what amount of damages plaintiff was entitled to, as in a later communication the defendant company had admitted liability, but denied that plaintiff had sustained serious injury.

Evidence in support of counsel's opening statement was given by Edmund Kelly, wharf labourer, and the plaintiff. The Court then adjourned until 10 ♦’clock this morning.