SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16855, 8 June 1920, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Herdmaa.) , GIG A2TD MOTOR CYCLE COLLISION ' Frarc-s Richard Anderson jM- "\V. J- Sini). coach-builder's apprentice, Chiistchuic , Frederick Cnimr. (Mr il. J. Gresson, jnlh him Mr C. S. Thomas), farmer, Spnn .ton South, for £630 damages m respect of «, col lision between defendant's PS an<l , a J 0 ' 01r cycle, in the eide-car of whicn plaintiff was a "nassenger. . _ Mr M. V> - . Woodfield was lorcman ci .ne jU Sr Sim, outlining the plaintiffs> case, statcd that plaintiffs brother was driving tbo motor-cycle to Chrutciurch from fapringsioa South,- between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. o,i *o\ember 9th, 1319, and when about ha between Springston South and £>pri ■- ■ > tho motor-cvcie collided with a, gig & l , bv defendant. It was a moonlight night, bat cloudy. Tho motor-cycle ms bony driven about 17 miles an hour, when euu-d-ii!v tbero loomed out of the darkr.es* som obstacle with no light on it ; thought it was a vehicle going in the sam_

lirection as the motor-cycle. The sp.cd ot ±o motor-cyclc was reduced to aoout 10 :r.ile.=» an lionr, and the driver, 11 i!le imprestior. that the other vehic.e > ■r o in<; in the crime direction as he wac, drew 'ut +o the. right with the object or passm = it; th© driver of the gig about the same tune swerved to his left, and at the period of impact the w,.s transversely acros. |he road. Sonic portion of Uie ? 1^. 1 .P I . oba , D J 5 ono o£ tho shaits., struck plaintiu in the face which was practically reduced to J pulp, and ho was rendered almost <««m----scious; as a result of tho accident lie_ lost the eight of one eye, and OTfiered i-ciai disfigurement. Consco.ucntly plaintiff s earning capacity and lii 3 prospects m "te vere eeriously jeoparf!is;d. Tho defence wa-i a general denial, u «3 also contended that the' motor-cycle was cn its wrong side of the read, that it was insufficiently lighted, that it w;\s unskilfully hanled that its steering gear was defective, and that the collision was caused plaintiff's failure to keep a proper lookout Plaintiff cavo evidence on th 3 ot n- ? counsel's his account being- geneially supported by the evidenco of his brother, Edwaid Alexander Andersen, who dwe tho motor-cycle. Both witnesses stated defendant., when interviewed by them aft~. the accidcnt, admitted that there were no lights on his gig, that he saw the naotorcyelo litrlit 300 yards away; and that Jiu (defendant's) brother had three times told him to pull ever. , . f

Other evidence wn<? given in support ot plaiutiff's case. Dr. A. B. 0 Br:en es * tied to the- injuries received by plaintiff, ana stated that tho eye was irremediabljdestroyed, and the tear duct of the left was destroyed, the injuries to plamans nos preventing an operation for relief. Mr Thomas, outlining tho case for the defence. stated that defendant and his brother were returning from GrGonpark to Sprinoston, and at 9.30 p.m. defendant decided that it was not necessary to have a light on tn ei", as it was a beautiful moonlight Defendant, who was driving on tho correct side of tho road, saw a light about a nn'c oil; when ho arrived at a culvert near where tho accident happened, lie saw that it a motor-cycle, and that it was on its incorrect side, of the rood; as the vehicles trot nearer the motor-cycle took a email turn out on to tho road, but soon returned to its.incorrect side, and ran into the horse which had been brought almost to a standstill. Tne plaintifi was thrown out of the. side-chair, but the driver of tho motor-cycle was not unseated. Evidence by independent witnesses would be given as to tho tracks by tho vehicles, and would show that tn. gig was on its proper side and tho inotorcyclo on its incorrect side; it would be shown also that tho gig could not have been transversely across tho road when the accident, occurred. Evidence v.-ould be given also «s to the' clearness oLtha night and to_ tho fact that just before the accident plaintifi and Lis brother v/cr© ls-ugliiug and cliatting, and could not have been, koepmg a proper was given in support, defendant stating that when tho accident occurred tho horse's, near hind leg got in between the side-car and the wheel of tae cycle; he thought that the stop on (the shaft hit plaintiff on tlie head, as there' was some biood on the stop. When defendant spoke to Edward Anderson after tho accident tbo ed did not suggest that defendant bad been at fault; Anderson, replying to defendants question as to why ho on h., incorrect side of the road, had aa.id that ho could .not steer the bicycle. . Other evidence, on the lines of couneol s remarks, was given . Counsel will address tho jury, and his Honour will euiu up this morning. The Court adjourned till 9.45 a.m. to-dayi