SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 266, 30 July 1918, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

—» APPEAL CASE MpTOR-CAR AND TRAM COLLISION In stlie Supremo Court yesterday, His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir .Robert Stout) heard .1 case on appeal brought j bv Munt, Cottrell and Co., carriers, against the Wellington City Corporation, i'ho appeal was against- the. decision' of Mr. AY. (■}. Riddell, S.M, In .the Magistrate's Court Munt, Cottrell and Co. claimed against the corporation l:y reason, of an accident which occurred 011 JJecember S, 1916, at the, junction of Courteiuiy Place nud Taranaki Street, ,r , . n .*!. 1110 ' 01 ' van. the property of the plaintiffs and a tramcar collided, jiegligence on the part of the motormnn was alleged, and the company claimed .£sl Lis. (id. for the cost of repairs to the motor van, which was laden with hogsheads of beer; also ,£75 for the loss of tlio uso of (he van, etc. The Magistrate's decision was in favour of the corporation, and against this decision Hunt, Cottrell and Co. appealed. Mr. T. AV. Hislop, with him Mr. F. Ward, nppearcd for the appellant, and Mr. ,T. O'Shea, City Solicitor, represented the City Corporation. Mr. H'slop said the appeal was on point of law and.matter o'f fact"; Counsel then read tho evidence given in tho Lower Court, and some discussion arose as to au exhibit, the step of the tram car which had been damaged in I e collision. Mr. Hislop said that he had written stating that 110 wished to sou the step. My. O'Shea said ho could not producu the step. He did not think that an appeal was possible, and the step was im-, mediately put to use. The corporation had no material to spare and had not any for tho past two years. His Honour: The appal was on matter of fact, and the. step should be produced. Every exhibit in the Magistrate's Court shoud bo produced. Mr; Hislop; I wroto stating that I wished to see the step. Tlis Honour: You had better produce your letter. Mr. Hislop promised to do so. Counsel then reviewed tho evidence given iu the Lower Court. Mr. O'Shea also dealt with tho .evidence and contended that the driver of the motor van was at fault. The Magistrate held that (here was joint and simultaneous negligence, and Mr. O'Shea quoted a decision of Mr. Justice Williams in which the learned Judge held that, where there was joint and simultaneous negligence damages could not ba recovered. Mr. O'Shea pointed out that the tramcnr was struck in the centre by (he motor van, and as the tram was on a fixed fee die presumption was strong (hat ncglig'tfnco was with the driver of th" motor van. The motor van should havo been 011 the left eide of the street, | but instead of that it was in the middle t of the street, and that in fact appeared ! to bo confirmed by the van striking the i tra w.'ar in the centre. His Honour reserved his decision.