PUKE BRIDGE ACCIDENT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5036, 6 October 1926, Page 4

PUKE BRIDGE ACCIDENT.

FAILURE TO REPORT. MOTORIST BEFORE THE COURT. James Dobson, fruiterer, Kingsland, was charged before Mr J. W. Poynton, S.M., at the Police Court, Paeroa, on Monday, with failing to report a SSotor accident he ha,d on the Puke bridge, Paeroa, whereby William C. Fisher and his horse were injured. A second charge, of driving, a motor vehicle at a dangerous speed was also preferred. Mr E. A. Porritt appeared for defendant and entered a plea of not guilty in ea,ch case. Wiillam Clarence Fisher, Netherton, aged 13 years, said that on the, day of the accident he was crossing the Puke bridge when he saw a motor-car approaching. He pulled up to allow the car to pass, but instead it knocked the horse on the rump, causing it td fall. He fell on his he,ad, and the driver got out and spoke to him. He was on his right side, and the car was travelling very fast. No Svajrniiig horn was blown. He had his ankle hurt and the horse had its back cut. The driver asked him if he had any rag, but did not say anything about injuries or damages. To Mr Porritt witness said he Was riding bare-back, but had a bridle in good order. The car was nearly up to him before he saw it, but he had time to pull into one of the bays on the bridge. His horse was turned towards the car, The cut on the rump was caused by the handle of the defer hitting the horse. Two men got out of the car, but they did not ask him if he had bteen hurt. He wa,s .able to ride the horse home. He did not feel his injuries at the time, but his ankle and leg swelled later. William Joseph Quinlivan gave evidence that he Was working close to the scene of the accident, and had caught the horse, which wasi cut about. To Mr Porritt witness said that he did not see the accident, but noticed the hoy limping. Lucy Fisher, 'mother of th<§ first Witness, sajd that her son’s ankle and foot were injured) and he could not walk for three days. It was three weeks, before the pony could be.used after the accident.

Charles S. Shepherd, veterinary surgeon, detailed the in juries, to the horse. There were no marks denoting that the horse had kicked out at the car.

Constable McClinchy stated that the briidge was 14 chains long and 18ft wide in three places. The accident had occurred in a, part of the 18ft section. The accident had not been reported to any police station. Mr Porritt quoted authority in connection with the charges which showed that there was no obligation on the part of a driver to report an injury to an animal. The second charge required to be proved hat defendant had driven negligently or recklessly. James Dobson, defendant, stated that as he approached the bridge h®. noticed the boy on horseback coming from the other end. The boy pulled his horse into one of the bays. When just opposite, the horse kicked out, striking the front mudguard. At the same moment he accelerated, with the idea Of getting out of danger. He then pulled up and received an assurance from the boy tha,t he was quite unhurt. After noting the cut on the horse he saw the boy leading the animal away by a rope attached to a halter. Owing to the approach to the bridge being on an incline he was driving at a very reasonable pace. In his opinion he ha,d done the only thing possible in .accelerating when he saw that the horse was restive and kicking. As the boy assured him that he was unhurt, witneSjs said he did not consider it necessary to report the incident.

To Sergeant Maclean witness said that he did not notice a signboard instructing .traffic to proceed slowly. He was greatly surprised to hea.r that

the boy had been injured, .and he did not think he could have been as badly hurt as the evidence indicated. At the time he was satisfied that Fisher was all right

John Corcoran, survey cadet, Auckland, said that he had a good view of the bridge, and noticed the boy on horseback at the far end of the bridge. As the car drew level with the horse he noticed that it was restive, and the animal kicked out, striking the front mudguard. Everything possible had been do>ne to prevent the accident. The boy appeared to be slightly shaken, and the horse was cut on the rump. Horse-hairs on the handle of the door of the car indicated that it was that part of the vehicle that struck the animal. In summing up the Magistrate said that he was satisfied ajn. offence had been committed. The. defendant was not entitled to adopt Lord Nelson’s) attitude and "clap his glass to his. sightless eye, etc.” Unndoubtedly the boy had been knocked out, 'and it was fortunate that he had not been jnore seriously injured. A young boy, and especially a colonial, Sight easily reply that he was all right, but defendant should have taken greater precaution to find out exactly how badly hurt he was. In his evidence, defendant had .admitted travelling along the bridge at I's miiles an hour, which was equal to 22ft a second. There was too much fast driving, and it was oWy reasonable to expect drivers to slow down. The case was not a bad one, but the driver was liable for a certain amount of negligence. On the charge of speeding a conviction would be entered, with costs amounting to £4' 6s. On the other charge defendant would be discharged.