SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 11786, 8 October 1901, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

The civil sessions were opened, on Mo»day, when His Honor Justice E. T. Conolly took his seat at XO o'clock. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Robert Wright v. William Tompsitt,, Claim, £400 as general damages, The claim set out that 'on Ikarch 28 last the defendant,''. the .landlord of the Urenui H6tel, did assault the plaintiff as to cause, .the plaintiff bodily harm,_for which .injury the plaintiff now claims .the above-mentioned damages. Mr Samuel .appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Southey Baker for the defendant. (Evidence Continued* from Yester- . ' '" "- day.). By Mr Baser : Had the nose been skilfully and persistently treated,, it might have been better than it was Treatment in such cases was. painfi.l, and patients often jibbed on the treatment. There was nothing to guide witness as to whether the'injuries were caused at one time. Wright would suffer inconvenience from the injury. He would not say that it would affect Wright in his occupation asa farmer. > By His Honor : Tha immediate effect of such an injury would be to cause disorder to the patient for some three or four days. , ,• • Dr. Fbo'kes gave evidence as to making' an examination of Wrights face on July 3rd. Dr. Leatham and he examined 'the face. He heard. r the evidence of Dr. Leatham, and agreed with that evidence as to the nature of Wright's injuries. ," : The plaintiff, cross-examined* by Mr Baker, said that r*'>or to March 28t he had never had any words "or quarrel with Tompsict. He had np reason to think that Tompsitt had any grudge against him. Tompsitt had always been obliirmg an,d coufteous. Nothing was more unexpected to witness" than beinfj struck by Tompsitt on March 28., He^never said anything that day ; i& the hotel at which any reasonable man could take offence. He attributed all the damage tohismoso *.c the blow he received from Tompsitt. to March 28 the nose was not damaged or disfigured. He always had • a bridge on his nose, Human nosed' he believed people cal,ed it Prior, to March 28 he had some unpleasantness with Mrs Tompsitt. Mr Baker .—Did she ever request you not to come to the hotel .jgygd kick up a row ? ►, ti . X Witness :— No ; but ,slu) had sai& that they could do wii&out his r dostoni. He did not remember a few weeks before this occurrence playing cards for two houis at the hotel after tea had been announced. „Oh one occasion he had some words about meals at the hotel. This was on about the last occasion he wa» in the* house prior to March 28. Mr Baker — Did you say on that occasion that you looked on public houses as being lor public convenience, that you were entitled to have tea, and would d well have it ? Witness denied saying such remarks to Mrs Tompsitt Mr Baker : On a subsequent oocasion when someone askea you to go into the ljouse to have a drink, did you make use of an indecent remark (quoted) ? Witness : No. • • Mr Baker : Did you call, Mrs Tomp sitt a low bitch in public ? Witness : Yes ; after the assault her husband committed on me, Mr Samuel said that they would prove the expression was made under great provocation. Mr Baker (to plaintiff) : Did you say, referring to Mrs Tompsitt, before the assault was committed, . I will take a rise out of her?" Witnoss : I never said so. Continuing witness denied that after he was struck* he tried to climb over the bar counter. He was too dazed tO do so. „ Mr Baker,: Did you not say, after you were struck, " you ol»< " 1 have to wait 40 years I will be even- with you for this?" . Witness : I never usea such words. I used words to the effect that 1 would make him pay for tho Wow Cross - examination . co . n * i^*»L' After the assault lie went into the dining room and had a cup of tea Next morning he drove back to Waitara with Murcott Mr Baker : Did you over have ; a fight with Charlie Brown m the Bridge Hotel at Waltare ? Witness : No ; Brown struck mo. Mr Baker : Did you have' a stand up fight with Brown ? Witness : No. Mr Baker : Did Utr wu inflict severe injuries on you V Witness : Both my eyes were blackened on that occasion, but the nose was not injured. The row took place in the billiard room Witness was uuder the influo ico "6* drink that: night, and only had been in the rooiu a minute ov so Ho remembered Sampson being in the room with him, anil saw him to l>ett. He did no" say to Sampson, " He (meaning i Brown) has brokec my nose." He did not use plaster on his nose after 'hat. He never had ' a fight with Walters, a fellmonger at Waitara. Some six years ago hu had fights with Davies, Gilbert, and Gambelat Uruti. The tights arose out of the same circumstances. lie never had a fight with Hay, hvj brother-in-law. He never had a light with P. Dover. Some discussion ensued > between Counsel as to the nature of the evidence. His Honor said th«> only value o|,, the evidence was to ihow that %h%

nosy wa9 injured beforu March 28 th Tho defence would ha-ve to prov< that the nose was injured in one o these fights prior to March 28th. Tho Court adjourned t^ 1 . 2 o'clock The Court resumed at 2 o'clock. R. Wright, recalled, wa«i cross-ex anlined. When' he werjt to Dr. Walk c." he was not told that his nose ha< been injured before. During the las 12 months he had not been threaten ed with ejectment from a New Ply mouth hotel owing to whni he hac said. Re-examined :■ He remembered om occasion when he had some word: with Mrs Tompsitt over an earlj bieakfast. Mrs Tompsilt said oi that occasion she did not mind Mi Nt-wsham, who also wanted break fast, but she could not stand Wrighi Alter the affair on Mui'ch 28th, Mi! Toznpsitt called him " a low black guard " and " an informer." Witness said that Mrs Tompsitc was noi speaking the truth, and then t'ok what they called her in Urenui. Mrs Tompsitt made reference to witness dead wife, and th-.L provoked him to say the words -he did. Henry Linn, a, stock agent, remem bered being in company with Wright and Lucena in the Urenui- Hotel on March 28th- Mrs Tompsitt, in- answer to a remark made, t"ld witness he could have tea whenever he liked; Wright said, " You had' better have it now or you won't got ft when you come back." Witness said It wasalr.ight as Mrs Tompsitt said he could have . it. Mrs Tompsitt then left, and ,. Wright said he woMd take ■.a rise 1 out ot Mrs Toiajp&itt. It' was then that ' Tompsitt. «&i*uek?' Wright. Witness did not see tße^blo'? but he heard it, and also heard Tompsitt say-. '/Take that."' Wright's nose bled after the blow, and. he Seemed - stunned for a few moments. Witness left a few minutes after, .and wHon he came back he took Wright into tea with him. There -seemed no provocation for the blow s i far as "he could see . By Mr Baker : Mr Tompsitt must have heard Wright say. he would take a rise out of Mrs Tompsitt. By His Honor : He did not hear any offensive language prior to the assualt. : J .Li. Lucena, p. farmer, deposed to being in company with Wright and linn on tho day' of the assault.. He did n.ot k hear anything' s that .would __..be termed offensive language to Mrs Tompsitt Defore the assault., - i Dr. Goode, of Waitar a, stated that he" examined Wright on April Ist tar an r injury, to his nose*. The cartilage was dislocated from, the bone. He tried to reduce tb.3 dislocation, but Wright could not bear, it. (Witness gave full details as to the injury >. 'The • injuries' such as could be" caused by a severe blow from a.mac's fist. He plugged the nose, and gave full instructions as to • the treatment. At the time he " treated ' him Wright was suffering acute pain- Tho injury was .permanent. Wright's breathing power was affected., Over 12 months ago he saw "Wrigltt in Waitara "" when .Wright had two black eyes. The^nose was not injured then. Mr Baker cross-examined -witness at some length. ' ■ ■ < ■ Samuel How, hairdresser, at Waitara, said he. 'hadi been, shaving - Wright frequently Tor the last seven j-eaaps. He- recollected shaving Wright " some 12 months- ago, after Wright had had a quarrel with one Charles Brown.' Wright's, eyes were discoloured. Wright's nose was n .t injured as far as he could see on thit occasion: Since then' Wright's nose h«tf been injured. O; .M. Lepper, Commission Agent, " Jfew Plymouth, gave evidence as to knowing Wright m the Lepperton district for some 19 years. One day in April last he :net Wright coming in from Waitara on the train. He noticed Wright's face was altered. Wright's face was net like that pre.viously. His Honor : There, is a. suggestion that Wright's nose was put out of shape last July. Did you 'know anything- about that ? Witness': I am certain that it was not out of shape at that time. This closed the evidence for, plaintiff . - Mr Baker said as it was now 4r454 r 45 p.m. he would ask His Honor , if he would not take an> adjourrmerit.< He would like to look further into the Case, as the evidence in face of Rhat his witnesses were prepared to swear simply astounded him. His Honor said he would adjourn As .desired. He wanted to know ' if there' was any chance of a" settlement' in thecase. ' ' Mr Samuel said he saw no possibility. - The Court adjourned till 10 o'clock on Tuesday. - i • THIS DAY. The Court sat Bt 10.30 o'clock/; "when it was- announced that a settlement had been" made in the Wright v. Tompsitt case. Mr Baker said that after the state-; ment of "His _;onor on Monday evening -he had sought a settlement of the - case. ' The evidence for the plaintiff, had taken him completely by surprise.. He and his client were led to believe that the real injuries to plaintiff had been caused in a fight with C. Brown at Waitara. It had been stated to them that the, iight- had occurred two months be-^ lore March. 28, but when they found it was some eight months before itr followed that they had been misinformed. On behalf of his client he; expressed deep regret for the occur-; rence. . Aa soon as he found out the real ntfture of the injuries' caused he felt it his duty to advise Mr Tompsitt, who willingly agreed to ai 'compromise of the case. No doubt •there had been provocation, but this; did not justify the injuries inflicted, on the plaintiff. He merely mentioned this to show that the blow, axis 'not' a malicious or vindictive ."one, but was struck on the impulse "'%f the moment. He trusted the 'other side would accept this explanation. He' asked that judgment be entered bis> client for £125, and costs on the lowest scale. Mr Samuel, said it was not his wish that the case should be brought into Court, but the whole spirit in which .the defence had been conduct ed had compelled him to press the matter,, and he took the whole responsibility on himself of the course that had, been adopted. He wished to add that there was no personal hostility on Mr Wright's part towards Tompsitt, other than the natural feelings of a man who had been badly injured without giving just provocation. It was Tiot Wright'B desire to make money out of Tompaitt, and on behalf of his client he agreed to the settlement. His Honor then formally entered judgment for plaintiff for £125 and costs on the lowest scale. His Honor said the settlement was a very reasonable one. The amount was a reasonable one considering the nature of the / injuries, , After the evidence taken before him he -was of opinion that 'the settlement was extremely creditable to counsel, and the defendant bad been rightly advised.. MOORE V. HOUSTON. Claim for damages sustained by the negligent conduct of the defendant in letting a cow stray on public highway, by which a horse driver by Wr J Hayes, of Albert Road, was startled and bolted, throwing the plaintiff, Miss M. Moore, upot the road,; and inflicting injury upoi he On the application of Mr Samuel the case was struck out, the "oattei having been satisfactorily settled bj «, reference to arbitration.