The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1897.

Timaru Herald, Volume LX, Issue 2459, 29 July 1897, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1897.

6ue readers are aware that since the great disaster m the Brunner coal mine, by which so many unfortunate miners lost their lives, several actions have been brought by surviving relatives to recover damages against the company to whom the mine belongs. It is alleged that m a case which was tried some time ago before Mr Justice Denniston m Hokitika, His Honour ruled that the fact of the existence of a fund (the Brunner relief fund) for the •benefit of surviving relatives could be pleaded m reduction of damages m an action against the company. Unfortunately we have no report of the case before us, but the question involved is perfectly clear, though the answer to it does not appear to be so, if a recent Press Association telegram can be relied on. We take it for granted that it was not the mere existence of the fund that Mr Justice Denniston ruled could be pleaded m reduction of damages,but the fact that the plaintiff had benefited by it ; that is to say, that the managers of the fund had actually given plaintiff relief from it. According to that ruling, if a plaintiff claimed £500 for the loss of her husband m the disaster, and it could be shown that she had received, say, £50 from the fund, th® latter sum should be deducted from the formerj always of course supposing that the jury found that plaintiff would otherwise have been entitled to recover damages to the larger amount. One of yesterday's Wellington telegrams was as follows :— " In an action against the Greymouth and Point Elizabeth Coal Company, arising out ,of the Brunner" disaster, the Chief Justice ruled that the fund subscribed by the public for the j relief of the sufferers cannot be | pleaded by the company m reduc-: tion of damages. This decision overrules that of Mr Justice Denniston m the last trial at Hokitika." The sender of the message misapplied the word " overrules." His Honour the Chief Justice was not sitting as a Judge of Appeal, and the position with regard to the point at issue is that Mr Justice Denniston decided it m oneway and the Chief Justice the other. A third learned Judge might come to the conclusion that Mr Justice Denniston was right and the Chief Justice wrong. What is now wanted is an authoritative delivery by the Court of Appeal, and that we suppose will be forthcoming m 4ue

season. The point seems to us to be of considerable importance, for if a negligent company can shake themselves clear of a claim, or part of a claim, for damages on the plea that the person injured (or, m case of a fatal accident, those who had been dependent on him) had received some pecuniary relief from another source, a like plea could be set up by a privateperson sued under similar circumstances. We do not presume to say whether the Chief Justice or Mr Justice Denniston has laid down the law rightly, but we have a strong opinion as to the equities of such cases. We are quite unable to see why the liability of a negligent company or individual should be lessened m the smallest degree because the injured person happens to have received | some relief either from a fund subi scribed by the public or from some | personal friend or charitably dis- } posed private person. It must be understood that we do not apply the term. negligent to the company named m this article. We do not profess to know anything about the facts of the cases which have occupied the Supreme Court m connection with the Brunner disaster. Our remarks are intended to have a general application, and we have concerned ourselves only with the plea which has given rise to a remarkable difference of opinion between two learned Judges. i i

A statement of the receipts and expenditure of the Consolidated Fund for the quarter ended the 30th June shows the amount of the fund to be £949,467 9s sd. The ordinary revenue account amounts to .£826,038 15s 9d, and is made up as follows: — Ordinary revenue account, cash .£122,033 14s 4d; advances, £294,605 Is 5d ; and investments, £409,400. The State forests account totals £13,425 9s 4d, made up of—Cash, £12,275 9s 4d; and advances, £1150. The accounts of local bodies show—Cash, £17,797 5s 8d ; advances, £5315 12s 3d. The deposit account is made up of £63,791 14s 9d m cash and £23,098 11s 8d m advances. The Public Works Fund totals £142,655 17s 7d, and is composed of £28,317 14s 5d m cash and £114;338 3s 2d m advances. The Land for Settlements account shows—Cash, £17,262 8s 7d; advances, £1491 5s 7d; total, £18,753 14s 2d. The Lands Improvement account amounts to £119,627 2s 4d, made up of—Cash, £58,611 15s 7d ; advances, £36,015 6s 9d; invest-! ments, £25,000. These together! with other accounts, show a total of £1,536,143 lis lOd, of which £287,985 Is is m cash, £514,958 10s lOd m advances, and £733,200 m investments. »