COURT OF APPEAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5861, 1 May 1897, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL.

[Per Press Association.! * WELLINGTON, April 30. Argument in the case Smith v. the Otago Presbyterian Church Property Trustees was concluded in the Court of Appeal this afternoon. The Court reserved its decision. The case of Andrews v. the Queen was then taken. This was a petition under the Crown Suits Act, 1881. The petitioner is a labourer, of Blenheim, in the employ of the Marlborough Farmers' ' Co-operative Association. The Association is in the habit of forwarding produce by the Government railway from Blenheim to Picton, the Railway Department supplying trucks and the employes of the Association loading them. The department always requires truck loads of chaff to be secured with tarpaulins, supplied by the department along with trucks, and these tarpaulins have to be fastened over the load by those loading the truck. This is done by means of short ropes passing through eyelets in the tarpaulin and knotted or spliced. On June 2, 1896, the 'petitioner was loading trucks for the Asso'oiation, and in fixing a tarpaulin over a !load caught hold of a rope which was not properly attached to the tarpaulin, in consequence of which, he fell from the truck and broke a leg. By his petition he sought to recover damages from the Crown. The case was tried at Blenheim on March 12 last before Mr Justice Denniston and a jury -The jury, in answer to questions put to them, found that it was the duty of the department to. supply tarpaulins with , ropes fit for the purpose for which the tarpaulin was being used by the petitioner, that the rope in question was not in reasonably fit condition, that ■ the department and its servants had not taken reasonable care to have it in fit condition, and that there had been no negligence or fault on the part of the petitioner, and awarded the petitioner J8250 damages. The Judge entered judgment for the amount of the verdict, and costs, reserving to the respondent deave to move ib the Court of Appeal to : set aside the judgment, and enter judgement of nonsuit, or for the defendant, or for a new trial. The respondent now moved ; accordingly, the principal ground being ! that there was no legal duty on the part of the department to supply a tarpaulin or a rope fit for the use to which it was put by the petitioner. The Court, however (Judges Denniston, Conolly and Edwards), unanimously held otherwise, and dismissed the motion with costs. Mr Gully and Mr M'Cailum appeared for the respondent, and, Mr Jellicoo for the petitioner.