He was asked to show where the plaintiff had been lying at the time that she was screaming in pain, and he marked with an X on a photograph. He was then asked: Q. “So that hose would have been in her hand, would it? A. It was on the ground lying next to her.” Further, in cross-examination when the witness was told the plaintiff had given an entirely different version as to how the accident had happened, it was put to him: Q. “And indeed, there is a great deal of bad blood between you? A. There is, no doubt about that. Q. Which would go some way to explaining why you’re so keen to come to court here and give evidence that is completely contrary to what Mrs Maley would say? A. Well, I wouldn’t be coming here not to tell bullshit - excuse – yeah, I have got nothing to hide, mate. I’m not gaining nothing if you know what I mean. Q. Are you gaining anything, Mr Brown? A. I got a new fence out of it, that’s about it.” He was later questioned: Q. “Why would you say to someone who has not accused you of anything when you see them later on that, ‘You shouldn’t have been up on the fence’, when you didn’t see that, and that it is none of your fault, why would you use the words, ‘This is none of my fault’? A. Because it is not my fault. Q. But why do you think it was even suggested it was your fault? A. Because I got told I was going to get sued. Q. Who by? A: By her.” Further, he was asked: Q. “And why do you think she was saying any of this was your fault? A. I don’t know, probably because of me (sic) dogs.”
A. Did the neighbours come out and speak to you after the fall? Q. No. A. Not that day? Q. Sorry? A. Not that day, the neighbours didn’t speak to you? Q. We have never spoken to the neighbours.” Later, the plaintiff confirmed she had read their statements, and the following matters were put to the plaintiff from the statement: (a) “And Ms Grice has given a statement that they heard you screaming on the other side, ‘We had a look over the fence and saw the neighbour, Savannah Maley, laying on the ground with the hose next to her with running water’, what do you say about that?---Totally false.” (b) “I then asked if she was okay and if she needed any help, what do you say about that? Totally false.” (c) “‘She screamed her arm was broken and she got up and went inside her house’, did you say to anyone that your arm was broken before you - - -?There was nobody there.” (d) “‘Two or three days later in the evening Thomas and I were sitting in the backyard. Savannah Maley’s come outside and yelled out that she’s had an operation on her arm and she’s going to have to have time off work’ did you speak to her and Thomas some days later and say you had broken your arm and you were going to have some time off work? No. Did you speak to her at all? No.” (e) “It’s alleged Thomas has yelled back to you that you shouldn’t have been up on the fence squirting the dogs with the hose, what do you say about that ...? I wasn’t. He didn’t make that allegation? No.” (f) “Apparently Mr Brown says the same, and he’s saying that the hose was running, the dogs were wet, and you deny all that? M’mm.” In submissions, plaintiff’s counsel submits that the plaintiff’s complaint to the hospital on the day of the injury amounts to a prior consistent statement admissible to rebut a recent invention of the mechanism of injury, and this is to be compared with two statements made some three years after the incident by the neighbours. He further submits that there was bad blood between the witnesses, at least Mr Brown, who admitted some animus towards the plaintiff.