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
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

APPEAL COURT

RIGHTS OF MOTORISTS AND PEDESTRIANS.^’

WELLINGTON,- March 27

T r lie Court of Appeal .is ocupied today .in,, hearing an . appeal in , forma pauperis, by - Irene v Addis-: Smith, wife of. Wiliam Henry . Smith,of Wellington, mechanic, against Caroline ..Priscilla- -Purdie, wife of Lawrence• James Purdie, of Wellington, battery specialist. ■ ! • • ' p The action in the Supreme Court was-a claim for £922 for-damages. for in, uries ■ received by. ' Mrs Smith, through being knocked down by a motor-ear driven -by Mrs -Pul-die. After

a two-days’ hearing, the jury found that Mrs Purdie was; negligent, .in driving too .fast, failing to sound the horn, failing to observe .plaintiff, and failing to slow down and steer clear, The jury also found that Mrs Smith was not negligent, either, jar failing to keep a proper lookout, for vehicular, traffic, or in failing to use; feusonabli care. The jury awarded Mrs Smith £612, . . ,

Counsel for Mrs Purdie moved to iiavo judgement entered in favour of defendant, or for a non-suit.

On the motion in this direction, Mr Justice McGregor said..that, there was no doubt plaintiff had , been run down by Mrs Purdie and the only question was whether the .evidence was. sufficient to justify him in entering judgment for the plaintiff, in accord-; .ince with the verdict of the- jury. It seemed to. him that plaintiff could not have been looking wffere - she was going, because if she had -been looking, she must -have seen the, approaching mqtor-eiir. In his opinion, she . was. the author of ; her own injury, and on the evidence it was impossible to say that the defendant could have avoided die consequences of .plaintiff’s negligence, by the exercise of reasonable

cars-. His- .Honour considered it . his duty to enter judgment for . defendants, with costs acording to scale. The .present appeal is, against, the order of Mr Justice -MacGregor. The case is the first.'in -the Court of Appeal in New. Zealand- ,: dealing with’the respective , rights of motorists: and pedestrians. The Appeal- Court in the case,.Smith; v. Purdie,. reserved its decision.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19330328.2.15

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 28 March 1933, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
338

APPEAL COURT Hokitika Guardian, 28 March 1933, Page 3

APPEAL COURT Hokitika Guardian, 28 March 1933, Page 3

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