HENDERSON v. LEVIN AND CO.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 1944, 25 February 1919, Page 4

HENDERSON v. LEVIN AND CO.

SEQUEL TO AUTOMOBILE

COLLISION,

Al the Palmerston Sitting of the Supreme Court on Thursday, before his Honour Mr Justice Chapman, a civil action, Roderick S. Henderson v. Levin and Co., Ltd., a claim for £541 7s (id, damages for alleged negligence, and a counterclaim for £77 4s 3d damages for alleged negligence, was heard. The action, which was set down for hearing before a jury, was a sequel to an automobile collision on the Rangitikei Line, about one and ahalf miles out of Palmerston North. Mr Gilford Moore appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cooper for the defendant company.

Mr Moore, in .opening, said that the plaintiff Henderson was a llaxcutter residing at Foxton, and on August 15th he came to town on a motor cycle for the purpose of being medically examined. After the examination he started on his Avay home a 1)0 at live o'clock in (he afternoon. Just before be gut to the Mangaone bridge he was on his left side of (he road, when (ho defendant company’s car Came very last over (he bridge. The driver did not have control, and he swung across the road into the plaintiff. Plaint ill remembered no more. He was unconscious for 14 days, and his injuries comprised a fractured shoulder, a broken leg, concussion of the brain, and minor injuries. He was. in the hospital for 53 days, and he could not work for throe months after his discharge. Even now lie could only do light work, and he could not go back to flaxcutting. The motor cycle was destroyed. Plaintiff would further allege that Jenkins !md subsequently interviewed him and endeavoured to persuade him not to sue. The plaintiff on account of his being rendered unconscious. did not know very mneb about the accident, but fortunately there was a witness, a returned soldier, C. H. de May-Dalkemade, who had witnessed the whole occurrence. De May, who lived at Kapore, would say that on the day in question, while he was motor cycling home from Palmerston, he saw another motor cycle, the plaintiff's ahead of him. It was not going fast, and De May was overtaking it. and he would tell (he jury that it was on the left or proper side of the road. M hen De Mav got to the corner he saw defendant’s car come over the Mangahone bridge. The driver of; the car was going too last, and seemed to lose control, the car swinging backwards and forwards across the road, and eventually running into the plaintiff. The witness was so close no that be had to run bis cycle into the fence in order to avoid participating in the collision. Counsel went on to say that other witnesses would give corroborative evidence as to the speed Jenkins was driving at, and touching other matters.

The plaintiff, Roderick S. Henderson, gave evidence along the lines outlined bv counsel.

Supporting evidence was given by Corneille Hubert de May-Dalke-niade.

The bearing was resumed on Fri-

The evidence had been completed on the preA’ious day, and Mr Cooper now addressed the jury lor the defendant company, Mr GiJtord.Moore folloAving for the plaintiff. His Honour Inning summed up), Ihe jury retired. About three hours later they were sent for by tiie judge, and in answer to him the foreman said lie did not think there was any possibility of their agree-

His Honour said he could now accept a majority verdict, even one of three-fourth, but be could not discharge the jury until they had been a wav at least four hours.

When the specified time had elapsed the jury were scut for again, when the foreman said that although they had not yet arrived at-a three-fourths verdict ho thought there avus just a possibility of them doing so.

Tlh’v again retired, and ball; an hour later returned a. verdict for the defendant company on the plaintiff’* claim, and on the counterclaim for the cost of repairs to the defendant’s ear.

His Honour entered judgment for the defendants accordingly with costs as per scale.