STRUCK BY FLAGPOLE.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 October 1926, Page 7

STRUCK BY FLAGPOLE.

PEDESTRIAN SEEKS DAMAGES. Wellington, Oct 18. The Court of Appeal was to-day engaged in hearing the case of William Stephenson Johnston against William James Grevatt aud another, which originally came before Mr. Justice Herdman at Auckland in September. The Bench consisted of the Chief Justice Hon. C. P. Skerrett, Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Stringer and Mr- Justice MacGregor. The facts of the case are that on June 11, 1925, appellant was walking down Shortland Street, Auckland, when part ef an old flagpole, which had been lying in the gutter of the roof on the Commercial Hotel fell from the top of the building and struck him on the head, causing him severe injuries. Respondents were demolishing the hotel. One, Davis, a plumber, employed by a subcontracting firm, Messrs. Morton and Collins, who was on the roof to inspect the leaden glittering sliped as he came round the front of the building. As he slipped he disturbed the flagpole with his leg and part of the pole fell on to the ground. Appellant then brought an action against respondents for damages on the ground of negligence in not taking proper to protect passers-by and in conducting demolishing operations carelessly. The amount claimed by the appellant was £1990 general damages and £">9 special damages. The issue was put to the jury in the form of seven questions. Some of the questions were answered negatively, others positively- On the vital issues the jury was divided, nine to three in favour of appellant, and awarded him the damages for which he asked. Respondents then moved for an order for a new trial or, in the alternative, judgment for them on the grounds that the terdiet of the jury was defective and was against the weight of evidence. To this motion Mr. Justice Herdman said: “But, indefinite though some of this evidence may be, it is impossible to say that there was not evidence from which inference might lie drawn that plaintiff had been injured in consequence of defendants' failure to discharge a duty, namely, making provision for the safety of the public while demolition was proceeding. The case was therefore properly left to the jury. I have come to the conclusion that the verdict of the jury is'not a satisfactory one and I therefore order a new trial.” Against part of this judgment the appellant appealed, while respondents contended that judgment should be entered for them. Mr. E. 11. Northcroft appeared for appellant and Mr. II- B. Redmond for respondents. Decision was reserved.