TRAMCAR AND LORRY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 256, 17 July 1918, Page 8

TRAMCAR AND LORRY

SEQUEL TO A COLLISION SPEED ON THE WALLACE STREET ROUTE, A collision between a horse-drawn lorry and a Wallace Street tramcar at the corner of Lower Cuba Street and Wakefield. Street 011 January 3 last formed Ibe subject of a claim lor £h0 damages for tho loss of a draught horse, heard by Mr. AV. Or. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The plaintiffs were J. O'Brien and Co., curriers." and the defendants were the City Corporation. The caso was interesting in respect to certain questions put by counsel as to the speed of tramears on the Wallace Street-Lambton Station route, and to alleged complaints made to the Public Works Department in connection therewith. _ Sir. M. Myers appeared for the plaintiil's and Mr. J. O'Shea, city solicitor, for the City Corporation. Plaintiffs set out that the accident which was the cause of the destruction of the animal happened through the motorman of the tramcar being unskilful ami negligent in his handling of the car. 'The horse had had one of its legs broken and had to be shot. John Hutchison, secretary of the Wellington Tramway Employees' Union, was called by Mr. Myers to give evidence ill regard to complaints stated to have beui made by niotormcn with regard to the high speeds required lo be accomplished on the "Wallace Street route. Mr. O'Shea strongly objected to such evidence, saying that Mr. Mye?s desired to introduce it for "political purposes." Mr. Myers (smiling): What political purposes? After some" further differences of opinion between counsel, Mr. Myers put the following question to the witness: The tramwaymen say they have no time 011 this route? Mr. O'Shea: Thai: is greatly unfair. His "Worship remarked that the evidence as lo time-table was of 110 great moment. At tho samo time he had no great objection to hearing what the witness had to say. Mr. Myers "(to the wilness): Have you had negotiations with the" Public Works Department about the time kept on the Wallace Street run "Acting under instructions, 1 had to communicate." Once, or more than once?—"On two occasions." & Lately ?—"Six month's ago." Was it by reason ot complaints mado by men on tho Wallace Street route F— " Yes." ■What did they want—longer time for the route, or what?— "Yes, thev desired extra time for the route. They complained that the run on the route was 1 too fast." Mr. O'Shea: Did you speak to the men 011 the route personally?—" No." . As u matter of fact, your business consists largely in.finding out tho grounds of complaint, and when you are short of a complaint j;ou make one? Mr. Myers objected to the form of this question. "This is the sort of thing which creates friction between employers and labour, and should, I suggest, be avoided," he added. Mr. O'Shea (to witness): Do you know the time allowed on the routp?—"Twelve 10 fifteen minutes." Do you know the distance?—" No." Alfred Henry Lake, driver, stated that 011 January 3 last ho was driving a single-horse lorry for Messrs. O'Brien and Co., when about a quarter of an hour before noon he had a collision with a tramcar. He had come right around Victoria Street, and was crossing Cuba Street i ( n the direction of Smith and Smith's. He was on his correct side of (he thoroughfare, and looked about him to see if any cars were coming. Thinking that the roadway was clear he walked his horse over the intersection, when suddenly a Wallace Street tramcar, which was travelling at about 30 miles an hour, collided with him. The car struct the horse. Witness had no time to go back, and could no! get across the rails in time to avoid the car, vrhich, in his opinion, was proceeding at too great a speed. After the impact, the horse was carried forward about lalf the length of the car. To Mr. O'Shea: He did not hear the sound of the tramcar's gong, and would absolutely deny that he was travelling at more than a walking pace across t'he rails. He did not know of the presence of the car until it was actually upon him. Thomas David Bryant, carrier, testified as lo witnessing the accident. At the time, witness was havinc his lunch at the carriers' stand opposite Messrs. Smith and Smith's. His attention was first attracted by the sounding of tho gong of the tramcar. late was on his right side of tho road and the car was -a little over a car's length from Lake's horse when witness heard the gong ringing. The horse was crossing tho Tails and witness considered that the motorman, who, he said, was not travelling fast, had time to pull up. It appeared as if the motorman was in doubt as to whether to stop or go on. Lake was not noticed by witness to be approaching flie intersection at a fast trot. Alexander Milligan, veterinary surgeon, gave evidence that the horse which was destroyed was worth from JMS to ,£SO. Case for the Defence. Mr. O'Shea said Ihe defence was that the accident was due wholly and sololy to the negligence of Lake, who drove oyer the crossing at a trot, without taking any care to see whether a tram was coming or not, and having travelled at such a rate he got on to the tramline before the motorman could John Henry Dineen, inotorman of the car which collided with tho horse, stated that ho first sounded tho gong about 30 or 40 yards before reaching the corner of Wakefield Street, and again when near the corner. Just 011 the corner lie saw a lorry approaching the crossing at a fast trot. The lorry was bejnjr driven at such a pace that it could not be pulled up irf time to avert an accident. Ho estimated that he was driving his car at from eight to ten miles an hoilr. and was not running against time—in fact, lie had a, couple of minutes to snare, 110 could do the journey from Wallace Street to the Lambton Station in fifteen minutes. Witness slated that Lake was driving, on the wrong sido of the road. To Mr. Myers: As near as lie could remember he ceased driving passenger cars 011 February 18. Ke had appnea for another position and was now engaged in driving the rail-grinding car. He had been driving for eight years, and had no more than the usual number of accidents. Do you knew that there have been complaints from the Wallace Street drivers against the short time allowed 011 that; run—yes or no? Witness to tho Bench: Is it necessary for me to answer that question? His Worship: You had better answer it. Witness: Well, as far as I am concerned. it has made 110 difference to me. Mr. Myers: Mr. Dineen, please give me a direct answer. Witness: Well, I am not aware of it. Mr. Myers: I am asking you whether it is not", a fact that thefdrivers of the Wallace Street; cars have complained about, the time allowed on Ihe Wallace Street run ? Witness: I am not aware of it. Mr. Myers: Do you kiiow that tho nnion complained to the Public Works DepartmentMr. O'Shea: There is no evidence about anything that happened at the union meetings. His Worship (to Mr. Myers): T don't think you cau put these questions. Continuing, witness said he was only about four or five yards away when he first snw the lorry, tho driver of which was well on his wrong side. Arthur Barnelt, conductor of the tramcar, said that the impact as a hard one. The car, however, was brought up suddenly by, a quick application of the brakes. The tramcar would be travelling at about ten miles an hour and the lorry at approximately six miles. Kenneth A. Brennan. who at the time of the accident was a police constable, stated that he was an eye-witness of the occurrence. The driver of the lorry, lie said, appeared fo be on the wrong side of Ihe road. The whole thing happened very suddenly, but at tho time the collision happened Ihe horse was not trotting. At this stage Ihe hearing was adjourned until Tuesday next.