"The expenditure,” states the report, "was reduced from £8010 to £7438, but unfortunately the receipts dropped from £6596 to £5458."
DCC asked to brighten Brighton
The fortnightly meeting of the Dunedin City Council was held last evening. An application has been received from the Brighton Advancement Society for a supply of electrical energy for lighting and power purposes for Brighton township. The city electrical engineer’s estimate for reticulating practically the whole of the residential area of the township, comprising 157 houses, and providing also for power for milking machines, is £3900. Cr Larnach said he must object to the Brighton extension until the city’s own streets were properly lighted. "Take Stuart street,” he said. "There is no lamp at the corner of Cumberland and Stuart streets. It is a disgrace to the city.” Cr Shacklock said it was not proposed to put the Brighton work in front of any city work that had been authorised. There was ample power to light the whole of the city and Brighton as well. Cr Larnach: "Then why isn’t it done?"
Tram passenger compensated
On January 16, 1922, the plaintiff, Mary Smith, widow, was at the Stock Exchange tramway terminus in Princes street, and was in the act of entering a tramcar for South Dunedin, when the tramcar suddenly and without due warning moved forward and the plaintiff was thrown from the step of the car and in consequence received serious bodily injury and had to be confined to her bed for two months or more. The defence denied that there was any negligence on the part of the corporation, and stated that if the plaintiff did receive bodily injury it was caused through her own negligence in boarding or attempting to board the said tramcar after it had started and while it was in motion. The question for the jury to determine was whether the accident occurred owing to the negligence of the plaintiff herself, or owing to the negligence of the tramway officials, or both. In order to succeed the plaintiff must prove that the accident occurred solely through the negligence of the corporation’s officials. His Honor summed up that if the conductor missed Mrs Smith, then the corporation was to blame, however honestly he may have been discharging his duties. It was quite obvious from the by-laws which had been put in that it was the duty of those in charge of the cars to keep a strict watch to prevent any passengers alighting or from entering a car while it was in motion. It was for them to decide whether on the evidence the probabilities were on the plaintiff’s side of the story or on the defendant’s side. The jury returned a statement: "We are of opinion that Mrs Smith was on the car while it was stationary, and through the starting of the car before she was seated, the accident occurred. Having in view the pain and suffering already endured, the necessity of paying a housekeeper for the last six months and her future disability through the accident, we are of opinion that she is entitled to the full amount of compensation claimed — £250, and the expenses already incurred.” His Honor entered up judgement for plaintiff accordingly.
— ODT, 17.8.1922
