APPEAL COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 28 April 1926, Page 5

APPEAL COURT.

jcdgmknt sfstainmib Te’ecrnnli —Press AitoeiaMco. YVKL'UXGTON, April 2«. 'Hie ror-ei ved • judgment of the Full Court in tiic ease of Leo Kobert Stocldarfc v. tlm irrrinit, councillors, r.ml inllnhit. nn i s of llie Ashburton County, delivered to-day, confirms the pirv’s renliel of JJlg’dft damages to the plaiiiiilf for 11 10 loss of !iis wife, caused nv her gig e.rlluiiiig villi an uniighted wire fence, creel ed l>y tile enmity to keep traffic off a dangerous spe"; caused by Hoods on the side of the inclined approach of the bridge. The ease war- brought under the Death by Accident Compensation Act. 1903. The Supreme Court jury found that tile defendants were guilty of negligence, which was the real cause o'- the accident, which, they found pin in tiffs wile could not have avoided wit!) reasonable care. The defendants sought a nonsuit on the weight of evidence. or a retrial. The proved facts showed that the fence placed by the county reduced the width of the road hv one-knirt h. that, it was at first lighted, and tint the lighis "’ere then discontinue!!, (hat tile gig of tlm plaml.ilfs wise was round entangled in the u'li'e of the ienee. and that she ga.i discovered on (lie road in a dying condition. Tin; judgment or the Court was that while defendants would not. have been liable for a.'cidents arising out of the state of the road through erosion, having fenced off the erosion, thrv r.eie liah'e if they did lte.l I al<e precaution 0 to make the obstruction safe tor the heavy traffic over (tic bridge. And, the Court conliruled the jury's verdict., adding that there was not sufficient, evidence .to justify the plea of <ontrilmtory negligence on the part of Mu' deceased, who was n enrol ir_ and • ■.\ r noriene r, d driver, and was driving a -piie( horse, with her gig lighted in the eicfoniarv way. •Judgi'i-nt "ais entered for pollutin' for ft.Pl.'f) with costs an per scale, and In addition three extra days at Tin i.'s per day. second counsel C 7 7s per da v for lour dnvs. nml fit _? 1-T loi argil men | of tDo motion for retrial.