MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 11 June 1925, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

■- THURSDAY. .M'.XE 11. i-| ' Belore \\ . Meldruni. Esq.. 5.M..) cl I BOROUGH BYE-LAW'S, g Borough Inspector (Mr park) v .1. , E'idd ir.. a charge of riding a cycle 1 I "Bhoul a light. h mad .Vs and costs . 17s lid. n A!• FILIATION CASE. lu an allilia I ion ra-e dolcudaU! was adjudged. ! y c in-eiit . to I e the putathv fat her ol ,an unborn child. debt cases. Robinson and Seas (Mr Murdoch) v A. T. Burrowe s eluiin iI'JS |S s (| I. Judgement hy default with coals UI I s (Id. An application for immediate exivut mu aas also gra at ed. CI..VIM EDI! DAMAGE-;. Waller Williams. Christchurch. Air .love:) V w. O'Brien (Mr Murdoch) a claim lor £1!) IDs 0d damages caused as Ihe result of a ear accident on Knkntahi road on September It). Mr Joyce said the claim was |cr damages arising out of accident. I’iaintilf was riding in defendant's ear on the Kokatahi road. On np-P'-ou-h-uv . iuaige a motor lorry was met and defendant instead of waiting (.11 the lorry had crossed over tho bridge attempted 1) cross before. with the result that an accident occurred. Arthur Nancekivell deposed he was a motor driver. On 1011 1 September, he was driving a motor lorry, going to Koilerangi. The defendant O'Brien was driving a motor ear coining the opposite way. When be saw O'Brien i lie latter wa- driving about ‘JO miles an hour. When witness crossed the bridge O'Brien passed him. Witness had ulkmil J feet of the lorry on the bridge when O'Brien passed. He next saw the lour wheels going over. Witness pulled up to some extent when he saw O’Brien. There were two passengers. To Mr Murdoch Knew young O'Brien as a careful driver of some two years experience. O’Brien had slowed down to 7 or S miles an hour when he passed at the bridge. I here was lu> collision that witness tell II the defendant swore the lorry was clear of the bridge when the ear missed. witness would not deny il. ll*’ would not contradict O’Brien ii he said the accident was entirely due In the wheels slipping on the grass. To Mr Joyce—He was slid of the op- , inion that his lorry was not oil the bridge when O’Brien worn on. Witness 1 bought O'Brien should have pulled up and waited till witness had passed. 1 To the Bench- It vras a wet day and the grass and road was wet.

The plaintiff's evidence taken al Christchurch was put in. Or. .). B. Baird deposed on Kith September 1021. a man named Williams waited an him. He examined him and found he had a contused toe. The injury was one that could have been caused by lining thrown from a motor car. For the defence Mr Murdoch led evidence. William O’Brien deposed that he was the plaintiff. Defendant did not engage with witness to travel to Hokitika. Witness went to the site of the accident about hall an hour afterwards. His sun had Boon driving for two years, was 1!) years ol age. and was a careful driver. Witness put in a {Jan of the locality mi that day. Ho was satisfied that the car slipped on The grass, and on a load of sand. The road was at its widest at this point. AVitness was not insured against this accident. Saw plaintiff some months alter and lie said lie had not lost any time through the accident. Asked if tho car was insured and witness stated it was. To AH Joyce—Defendant was a passenger and vvimess car ran lor hire. Witness drew the plan . and and sent in a claim to the insur-

ance company claiming for damage to the car and stated a passenger was slightly huri. Tho car was repaired, partly at the expense ot the insurance company. The company did not recognise liability for injury to the

passenger. HViia O'Brien dono«cd he was 10 years of age and had been driving a car for about two years and had bad no accident before. On 10th September ho was driving from Kokatahi to Hokitika. Had two passengers on that day. plaintiff and the late Airs Graham. AYlien near the bridge saw Naneekivell's lorry coming. It was raining at the time. There was a turnout near the bridge. Allien the lorry went past the car witness was just moving. He had drawn right to the side of the road to allow the lorry to pass. The lorry was cleat of the bridge before he put the ear to the bridge. He waited till the lorry passed and then the ear slipped. He did bis liest to drive the ear carefully. The wheels side slipped on to the grass and the load of sand. The oar went right over. Afterwards saw where the car wheels had slipped. To Air Joyce—Saw the lorry a quarter of a mile away. Merit. over Hit) .tide of the. hrjdgo .

To Mr Murdoch—TC. the car had not side slipped, he would have got on to the bridge quite easily. Frederick G. Amberger deposed be was a settler at Koakatabi. On 10th September be went to the scene of of the accident. He saw the marks of the wheels of the car. The car was there, but tbe passengers bad gone. Tli turnout near the bridge was the best place for a driver to wait for anolier car to pass. The load of sand being there and the grass being slip- | pery was the cause of the ear slipping. The lorry wheel marks were in tho centre of the road. To Mr Joyce—Has had no experience in driving a car. The car had gone over the side of the bridge. Helped to pull it up the. bank. His Worship said the question lie had to decide was whether the accident was due to negligent driving on the part of the defendant’s son. He was satisfied that in the present case the driver ol the car took a risk, and travelled too quickly ami he did not wail long enough lo clear the lorry and gel on the bridge. Judgment would. be jor I’hiintii! tor £<) (I- Oil. with costs £0 If) lid.