Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 246, 20 April 1895, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

Friday, April 18. (Before Mr Stanford, S.M.) G. Worsfold v. U.j. Hayns; claim £19 10s. MrSandilan.is for plaintiff and Mr Halliwell for defendant. This was a claim for damage sustained by defendant owing- to a horse he was riding- bein»- killed by coming into contact with defendant's trap, which was being driven without light*. Mr Sandilands, in opening the case, said he based his claim on the fact of the trap being- driven without lights, and also, he alleged, on the wrong side of the road. George Worsfold deposed that he was returning to Colyton from Feilding, by waj of Taonui road, on the night of February 12th ; he rode a portion of the distance with Dr Johnston and Laing-'s boy, and it was so dark with mist that he could not at first recognise his companions ; reined his horse in for a few minutes on the Taonui road and then started again; after riding a short distance 'came' into collision with a trap ; this was nbout ft mile from Colyton ; the shaft of the trap entered his horse's breast, killing it instantly ; the horse dropped into a ditch by the road side ; was riding at a canter on the left hand siae of the road when the accident happened ; could not see the trap until within a few yards when it was too late to do anything' ; defendant's horse was on the same side of the road as witness. Cross-examined : Left Feilding at about ]0 o'clock ; arrived at Colyton at a quarter to 11 , it would be about 10.30 when the accident happened ; it was quite dark as it had been rain-: ing ; was not galloping. E. Blake gave evidence of seeing the horse dead next morning and the position in which it lay, there were wheel marks on the grass as though the trap had been driven with one wheel off the metal. Dr. D. Johnston deposed : Bode with Worsfold and Laing towards Colyton ; it was too dark to recognise Worsfold although he knew him well ; missed Worsfold between Adsett's and the railway line ; met a trap which was not carrying lights. Cross-examined; Might have been about five yards from the trap when he saw it first ; could not see more than eight or ten yards in front of him, the weather being hazy with mist, it would take witness about half an hour to ride from Feilding to the scene of the accident ; Mr Hayne was driving at the rate of about live or six miles an hour when witness passed him. T. Gledhill deposed to burying plain* tiff's horse, I which he found lyi»g in the ditch ; the wheel marks were on the grass for eight or ten feet. W. Highti deposed the moon was obscured and the night was dark ; valued the horse killed at £15. For the defence Mr Halliwell raised the point that the bye-law re carrying lights was ultra vires in a road district as there was no authority to show that such a bye-law could be made. He contended plaintiff was guilty of con* tributary negligence. He admitted driv* ing without lights. H. J. Hayne deposed : On the night of February 12th the moon was nearly at the full, but clouded, the night being hazy ; was driving in the centre of the road ; Worsfold was riding quite in the middle of the road and simply ran into the trap ; was thrown out of his trap by the jerk and still holding the reins it forced his horse to back off the road which caused the marks on the grass ; asked plaintiff how he managed to run into witness' trap and he replied " I lost all control of my horse." Henry Snow corroborated previous witness' evidence. The question of bye-laws was discussed, Mr Sandilands submitting it was necessary for such to be made compelling vehicles to carry lights and he quoted sub-clause 4 of section 746 and other sections of the Road Board's Act, 1892, to show the Board was justified in making a bye-law to compel persons driving vehicles to carry lights. A breach of a bye-law was an unlawful action and anyone committing such a breach was liable for all consequences. His Worship was not sure that Boad Boards had such a power, but it "was not necessary for him to decide whether the Boad Board had or not. He would hear counsel on the facts of the case. Mr Halliwell submitted ordinary care* fulness had not been shown by plain* tiff. Mr Sandilands having also reviewed the evidence His Worship said he would accept defendant's story and considered plaintiff was riding recklessly at the time of the accident, having lost control of his horse, while defendant was driving care* fully. Judgment was given for defendant, with costs 2s, witness' expenses 22s 6d, solicitor's fee 21s. Mr Sandilands applied for leave to appeal against the decision, but His Worship refused it. H. S. Munro v. A. Green ; claim £4, Mr Reade for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendant raised the objection that plaintiff could not recover as he was an undischarged bankrupt. Mr Reade contended the book debts had been sold, the purchaser handing them over to Munro, His Worship upheld the objection and gave judgment for defendant with costs and solicitor's fee 21s.