MOTOR CAR COLLISION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 462, 24 June 1909, Page 3

MOTOR CAR COLLISION.

In the Palmerston Magistrate’s Court yesterday a claim for 7s 2d was made by Frederick S. Easton, Foxton, against J. A. Rodgers Rongotea, for damages sustained by the plaintiff’s motor car in consequence of defendant’s gig colliding with the same. Mr Fitzherbert appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cooper for the defendant.

The facts in support of plaintiff’s case were that on the 21st March last plaintiff, Easton, in company with Mr White, of Foxton, was being driven by the plaintiff’s chaffeur, D. Williams, from Bulls to Foxton, leaving the former place at about 7.30 p.ra. When they had proceeded some 20 miles, and at about q p.m,, a gig loomed up in the night without lights and on the wrong side of the road. The occupants of the car saw the trap by the lights of the motor when within about half a chain of the gig, and the driver immediately applied his brakes and endeavoured to pass, but the trap had not left sufficient room and it collided with the car, smashing one of the splash boards and ripping one of the back tyres. Immediate!}' after the accident the occupants of the car questioned the defendant and his , fellowtraveller as to who they were, and they replied Jacobson and Robinson. Plaintiff had doubts as to whether these were their correct names, and, after telling them that he would follow them until they divulged their real names, the defendant at last admitted that his proper name was Rodgers, that he was responsible for the accident, and that he would pay Messrs Skeates and Bockhaert’s account for repairs to the car. The repairs were effected, and the total bill, including cost of bringing the car to Palmerston and returning same to Foxton, amounted to 7s 2d, which sum the plaintiff claimed as damages, in addition to as general damages for loss of use of the car during the nine days in effecting repairs. Evidence in support of these facts was given by F. S. Easton, W. J. White, Skeates, and D. Williams.

The defence was that plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence in not pulling up in time to avoid the accident, taking Into consideration the slow pace at which he was supposed to be travelling, and that he was partly responsible for the accident, and damage claimed should be reduced if his Worship decided in favour of the plaintiff. ~ After the defendant had given evidence, in the course of which he stated that not he, but his fellow passenger, had given the false names, the Magistrate decided that the defendant had been guilty of negligence, and was alone responsible for the accidentIn assessing the damages, however, he would take into conderation the fact that the plaintiff had had two months’ use of the damaged tyre previous to its destruction ; further, he considered that, although the plaintiff had no doubt suffered considerable inconvenience through being unable to use the car for nine days, yet he had suffered no practical monetary loss, and he thought £g would be a reasonable sum to allow over all. He consequently gave judgment for that amount, together with Court costs £x, witnesses’ expenses £1 18s, and solicitor’s fee £1 6s.