MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22447, 18 September 1936, Page 14

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for the plaintiffs with costs was given by default in the following undefended cases :— Otago Hospital Board v. William Woodcock, £6, amount owing for board, lodging, and maintenance in hospital; Y 7 aeuum Oil Company Proprietary Ltd. v. John Watt (Kennington), £4 17s 4d, goods supplied; Turnbull and Jones Ltd. v. H. J. Cartwright (Oamaru), £4 Is lid, goods supplied; Green Island Borough v. the owner of five allotments in the township of Burnside, 4s, rates due. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Lillian May Hastie proceeded against Edward Thomas Lawrence (Bannockburn), claiming general damages amounting to £25 and £l6 18s 6d special damages arising from an accident at the intersection of King and Duke streets, in which the plaintiff and William Gilchrist Robb, the defendant’s authorised agent, were involved in an alleged collision between the plaintiff’s cycle and the defendant’s motor vehicle. Mr E. J. Anderson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr D. A. Solomon lor the defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the accident was the result of Robb’s unskilful and negligent management of the motor vehicle in that he failed to keep a proper look-out, drove across the intersection at an excessive speed, and failed to slow down, stop, or steer clear of the cyclist. As a result of the accident the plaintiff suffered injuries necessitating medical care and attention;' and was prevented for some time from following her occupation. Evidence was given by the plaintiff, Veronia Ethel Dorothy Shiels, Ralph Thomas Webb, and Eric Hastie. The defence was a complete denial of negligence, the driver of the lorry stating that the cycle did not collide with his vehicle in any way. After he had passed the intersection he heard a scream, and saw the girl lying on the road. The plaintiff did not cross in front of him, but may have rim into the bade of the lorry. After the accident the plaintiff was carried into a nearby boarding house, but during the time witness remained there there was no suggestion made that he had been the cause of the accident.

Evidence corroborating this explanation was also given by James Daly, the proprietor of an adjacent service station, and Lncy Sinclair, the proprietress of a boarding house overlooking the scene of the accident. Reviewing the evidence, the magistrate said there was a remarkable conflict between the statements of the witnesses for the plaintiff and those for the defence. He did not think that the evidence of the garage proprietor .and the boarding house keeper had been explained away. The plaintiff had failed to prove her case and would bo nonsuited. Witnesses’ expenses, amounting to £2 6s, and solicitor’s fee (£3 3s) were allowed the defendant.