VERDICT FOR £1750.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 170, 24 August 1914, Page 7

VERDICT FOR £1750.

BANKS t. THE KING. The jury, in the case Banks v. The King, returned the following replies to the issues 011 Saturday: — 1. Was the crossing flagged in such a way as to give reasonable iiotice to the deceased of the approach of the train? AnsAver: No. 2. if not, in what AA r ay was the flagging insufficient? AnsAAer: Not flagged in sufficient time. If the crossing Avas not flagged, or not flagged so as to give reasonable notice, Avas such omission or neglect the real, direct, and immediate cause of the collision? AnsAver: Yes. 4. Is the suppliant entitled to damages, and if ves, Avhat amount? Answer: Yes. £1750. 5. If yes, then in what shares phould such damages be divided as between the suppliant (the AvidoAv) and the children? AnsAver: £550 to the widow; £.1200 to the children. Mr Raymond thereupon moved for judgment, which was granted, with costs. The question of costs 011 the Court of Appeal motion Avas reserved. Mr Macassey, counsel for the defence, moved for leave to set aside the verdict and to enter judgment for the respondent. By consent; stay of proceedings was granted until the motion was heard. Mr Macassey further moved for a neAv trial 011 the ground that the A-erdict was against the Aveight of evidence. Mr Macassey, Avith him Mr A. F. Wright, appeared for the Crown, and Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., Avith him Mr M. K. Gresson, for the plaintiff.