MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 244, 3 July 1918, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CIVIL ACTIONS

RECOVERY OF £138 DAMAGES

Reserved judgment in favour of the plaintiff for ,Cl3B 12s. was given by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, yestqj'day, in the ease in which Robert Richaids, waterside worker, sued Alfred If. Guy, dairyman, tor ,£13!) damans for injuries received as a result of being knocked down by defendant's motor-car. In the courso of the hearing plaintiff said that the defendant negligently drove a motor-car on March fl last, near the intersection of Eeatherslon and Bunny Streets, so that it collided with plaintiff and caused him serious injury. As a consequence, lie had been unable to follow his occupation, had incurred medical expense, had a suit of clothes destroyed, and suffered' bodily pain. I'or the defendant it was contended that plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negiigtneo in standing on the road to wait for a tram-car. • His Worship said in the course of his judgment that 011 the day of the accident plaintiff was waiting at the intersection of Bunny and l'eatherslon Stracts for a Wallaco Street tram-car. There was 110 traffic 111 Eeatberston Street other than the tram-car to impede the view of plaintiff in the direction of Lambton station. Defendant was driving a motor-car from Lambton station and intended turning into Bunny Street. It -was 6tated by defendant, and his two daughters, who were with him at the time, supported his statement, that he approached Bunny Street on his proper side, was travelling about seven miles an hour, and sounded his motor horn when Hearing the plaintiff and those who were waiting with him for the tram-car. Disinterested witnesses testified that defendant approached Bunny Street on the wrong side of Featherston Street, and that when he was within 30 feet of the corner he cut across the front of the approaching tram-car. Plaintilf did not notico the car approaching until 110 was warned by a companion, and he attempted to slip back on to the footpath. In doing so, he was knocked down by the motor-cur and dragged from 15 feet to 20 feet. The weight of evidence, said His Worship, showed that tho defendant did cross in front of tho approaching tram, hut did not consider that the course taken by him - alt'eeted his liability. Plaintilf was negligent in standing in h'eatherston Street and not keeping a proper look out for approaching vehicles. 011 tho other hand, defendant saw the group of waiting passengers and was aware that they were not inclined to move out of the way in response to a warning from his motor horn. Plaintiff's negligence, however, would not preclude him from recovering if the defendant had a later opportunity of avoiding a collision, and could by the exercise of reasonable care have averted it. fn If is YS'orsh ip'g opinion the defendant was travelling at a greater speed than seven miles an hour when his car collided with plaintiff, his conclusion being drawn from tho fact that the motor-car travelled l(i feet to 20 feet after tin) collision, although the brakes were admitted to be in good order. When defendant became aware that tho men diil not show signs of moving out of the way it was his duly either to pull up or slow down to such a point as would give hi in power to stop immediately on the appearance of danger. Upon the facts provided, plaintilf was guilty of negligence, but defendant had the last opportunity of avoiding a collision, and his failure to have his car under proper control was the direct cause of plaintiff's injuries. Defendant must be held liable in damages. Judgment was entered for plaintilf for JJI3B 125., the amount being made up as follows:—i.oss of wages, -CIO"; medical expenses, .£l2 125.; loss of suit, JKIs general damages, <£20; court costs, J;3 45.; witnesses' expenses, ,£1 Is.; and solicitor's fee, ,£7 "a. At tho hearing, Jfr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for plaintilf and 11 r. Douglas Jackson lor defendant. WORK ON A h'ISIUNG LAUNCH. Repairs to a launch formed the subject of an action heard by llr, W. <i. h'iddell, S..M. The parties were the llntcheson Engineering Company, Ltd., plaintitfs, and Hugo Lupi and Co., of ishud lfay, fishermen. Pliiintiifs claimed t'no sum of •£•">!) 17s. Cd. for goods supplied and delivered in connectionwith work done to the launch "lie Yitlorin," owned by defendants. Air. J. C. "Morrison Speared for plaiulill's «nd llr. JL'\ E. Ward for defendants. Defendants set up the defence that excessive time was taken in installing an engine in the launch, this heing due to the alleged incompetence of one of pl'iintitfs' employees. Defendants had offered to settle tho matter at a reasonable figure, but plaintiffs would not take less than .£SO. Defendants counterclaimed for JCIOO, representing loss of corning power during the alleged excessive time taken for the • installation of the engine, and ■£!•! 12s. for cost of completing the work alter it had been placed in other hands. After giving evidence, His Worship reserved his decision. ■ UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment hy default was given for plaintitfs ill the following undefended cases-.— R. and 13. Titigey and Company, Ltd. v. A. la Roche, >£15 16s, lid.; costs JU 15s. 6d.; City Corporation v. Andrew Compton, .£22 2s. 2d., costs Bs.; Johnsonville Town Board v. John and Walter Teeney, J2IG 55., costs ,£2 145.; same v. Patrick Coffey, ,£25 3s. 3d., costs J-2 145.; Spencer George Radford v. H. T. J. Thacker, .£lB 1?3. fid., costs ,£1 10s. 6d.; W. Crabtree and Sons v. Kamo Brick, Tile, and Potterv Companv, Ltd., X9B IBs. lid., costs X 5 2s. Gd.; N'.Z. Pictures Supplies, Ltd. v. B. E. Williams, „C 3!) lGs. 4d., costs .£2 Ms.; George Stevens v. Harold Bounlree, .C 7 125., costs .£1 3s. lid. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Iu judgment summons cases, Leonard Ford was ordered to pay' John Andrew Smyth the sum of Jffi ss. (id. by .July 16, iu default six days' imprisonment; and R. E. Muirhead was ordered to pay the City Carriage and Motor "Works .£5 13s. Gd., by instalments of =£2 per month, in default of each instalment to ba imprisoned for 48 hours • POLICE CASES. The police cases at the Magistrate's Court yesterday were taken )>y Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M. William Watkius was charged that on June 13, being a prohibited immigrant, ho landed at Lyttelton contrary to section 14 of the Immigrants Restriction Act, 1008. Dedendant was remanded until Saturday. For insobriety, Charles Kemp was fined <Cl, in default 72 hours' imprisonment, and was made the subject of a prohibition order, and Peter Hughes was fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment. William Reeves was ordered to pay 15s. a week in respect of each of his two children, also to pay oil' .£24 arrears at the rate of 10s. a week.