Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MOTORS COLLIDE

CIVIL LITIGATION FOLLOWS. A civil action was heard by His Honour Mr. Justice Sim in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The case was one in which Dalgety and Co., Ltd. (Mr. A. W. Blair) sued Thomas Francis Quinlivan, horse trainer, of Tnradalo (Mr. IT. F. O’Leary) for .£+4o Bs. Bd. for alleged damage to a motor-car, the iwoperty of the plaintiff’. His Honour awarded £350 damages. The statement of claim alleged that on or about November 29. 191(1, a motorcar belonging to the plaintiff company, was being driven along the main road towards Te Horo, when it was run into and damaged by a ear driven by Quinlivan. It was further alleged that tho latter’s car was responsible fo r the collision, which the plaintiff edmpany contended was the result of the negligence of the defendant. Particular negligence was alleged as follows: —"Tho plaintiff’s car was being ’driven on its proper side of the road, and the defendant, although there was ample room to pass on the road, suddenly changed the course of his car, and ran into tho plaintiff’s car, and he failed and neglected to keep his car under proper control, or was going too fast, to retain proper control of the said car.” Plaintiffs also alleged that their car was so damaged that it could not be properly repaired, and that they disposed of it for £2BO. The ear, it was stated, was purchased new in .Inly, 1919, for £s+o, and at the time of tho collision, the cost of tho same make of car had risen to £6.»0. The plaintiff company therefore contended that it had sustained a loss of £370. In addition to tho loss ou the car, £7O Bs. Bd. was claim ed as expenses resulting from the collision. The defence was a denial of the allegations. A counter-claim was made for £55 damages. His Honour, in reviewing the evidence tendered, said that the plaintiffs car was nt no time on the wrong side of the road and that the defendant had failed to Kiow justification for leaving his side. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £320 (damage to car), and £3O (incidental expenses).

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19210628.2.87

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 234, 28 June 1921, Page 8

Word count
Tapeke kupu
363

MOTORS COLLIDE Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 234, 28 June 1921, Page 8

MOTORS COLLIDE Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 234, 28 June 1921, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert