SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 144857, 8 December 1915, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

A, CYCLIST’S CLAIM. DOEG AWARDED £6OO DAMAGES. At the Supremo Court at New Plymouth this morning, before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), tho case in which William Percy Doog, a pianotuner, residing in Now Plymouth, claims £IOOO damages from tho Crown, was continued. On the afternoon of October 31, 1914, Doog was riding a bicycle across tho level crossing on the Mountain Road, about a mile southward of 'Stratford, and ho was struck by a goods train, and ho received injuries which eventually necessitated tho amputation of his right leg, Tho suppliant was represented by Mr. A. H. Johnstone, and tho Hon. A. L. Herdman (Attorney-General) and Mr. H. R. Billing (Crown Solicitor) appeared for the Crown. Tho following jury was empanelled; — Goo. A. Clark, Percy Geo. Olson, Wm. Coombcs, Tlios. Hawkings, J. T. Mannix, G. T. W. M'Keo, E. J. Ellorm, F. S. Butler, P. B. Sole, T. Furlong inn., J. Lynch and J. Hayden. Mr. Furlong was chosen foreman. The jury on Tuesday visited tho scene of tire collision. Tins morning, after five hours’ retirement, they returned the following answers to the issues put to thorn: — 1 , 1. Wore the Railway Department and the servants of his Majesty guilty of the negligence alleged in tho following paragraphs of tho petition : (a) The sail level crossing is so constructed and placed ns to he exceedingly dangerous to persons approaching the same from the south, or Ngaerc, side, inasmuch as a high hank of earth completely obscures tho view of tho railway lino and trains running (hereon approaching from the north.—The jury s answer to this question was “Vos.” (b) Tho said Mountain Road and the said level crossing wore not properly maintained and metalled for a distance of 33ft. from the centre line of the lino of rails for the full width of too ‘si road, but portions of the rails were left unmetalled and lurmod an'ensti ui-.uo.i m tho said road, and tho southern portion of tho said road and crossing were iu a verv rough state, so ns to bo unfit for traffic.—Tho jury did not express an opinion on this point. (<•) Tho said ballast train was driven at an excessive speed, no look-out oiproper look-out was kept, and no whistle was sounded or other warning given of the approach of the said ballast train to tho said crossing.—The jury s roplv to this was as follows: “The jury is of opinion that tho departmental regulations arc quite inadequate to ensure a reasonable protection of tho public safety at this crossing. We arc ot opinion that insufficient warning was given on tho day of the accident under review. Wo are also of opinion that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the railway officials failed to conform with .the" departmental regulations.” 2. If thero were such acts of negligence, did they or any of them lend to the injuries sustained by the suppliant? —Vos. , . 3. Was tho suppliant injured as sta.ed in his petition?—Yes. 1. Was the suppliant guilty of n»ghgenee that caused or contributed to his in juries?- 1 -No. . .■j. What damages (if any) is tho supnliant entitled to receive? —(a) As sjiecml damages, _ £147 17s; (b) ns general damages £452 3s. Judgment was then given, with costa according to scale.