CLAIM FOR £319

Hokitika Guardian, 14 August 1930, Page 3

CLAIM FOR £319

AGAINST MOTOMST. (By Telegraph—Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Aug, 13. .In a case in wr.icli Mark Davin, a watersider, claimed £JI9 damages from Sydney Uiiarles ’Broiyn, an engineer, and Waller Neville Norwood, a clerk claiming that wuile crossing Customlloiiso Quay, at night, in January, 1929, lie had been struex down ,y u row ii s car, and. then some moments later was ran over by Norwood's ear, as he lay on the road, tiie jury found in favour of Brown. The claimant had his thigh broken, and was some time in hospital. He ...ileged excessive speed on the pari of 'defendant. After plaintiff’s ease losed, defendants’ counsel moved first for a non-suit, and next for a dis,o, nor. His Honour said-.that it wag a- 'question of two separate courses of action which had taken place, with an appreciable interval between them Plaintiff presumably was first knocked 1 down and then a little later run over. If the defendants were entitled to separation, their ■ application should be disposed of and the action turned into two cases. -

Counsel said his grounds for a nonsuit were that there had been no proof of negligence. Nothing had been proved other than tliiit the side of Brown’s car came into contact with a pedestrian on a dark night, "it seems to me,” said counsel, "that plaintiff cannot sue us jointly, but only in the alternative—not both of us, but one or the other. r J he question is ultimately, who broke the man’s leg?

'The question -of non-suit in this ease was reserved. Counsel for Norwood . moved for a non-suit, submitting that there was up evidence to connect Norwood pvith the incident. There was no evidence of negligence by the driver of the car, whoever lie was. There was further evidence of injury being probably due to plaintiff’s falling after being.'struck by the first car' than any other cause. His Honour said that he thought there was some evidence of identity so far as Norwood was concerned,. The second point as to proof of negligeiice was an awkward matter to determine hut the third point was in a different category altogether. The evidence in favour of Norwood was 'stronger than that against him. There was no proof, therefore, that 5 the running over by tlie 'defendant, Norwood, actually caused damage to plaintiff. His Honour entered' a noil-suit accordingly as far as Norwood was concerned.

Tlie finding of the jury was 1 that the defendant had not been negligent; and judgment 'was entered for tlie defendant, Brown, with costs.