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

CLAIM AGAINST A MOTORIST.

FOR KILLING A DOG

NO DAMAGES AWARDED

At the local S.AI. Court yesterday, before Air J. L. Stout, S.AI., John Purcell claimed the Aim of £SO damages against Izaae Jefferson, of Alarton, for killing his dog. Mr Bergin, for claimant, and in outlining the case, said that at midday on the 13th October, claimant was coining out of bis property on to the Levin-Foxton road. His dog. a cattle dog, was running beside him, and when they arrived at the gate, the dog ran across the road, and stood waiting on the other side. Plaintiff heard a car approaching at a high speed, and as he looked round saw it strike the dog and kill it. The car pulled up 69 or 70 yards further on down the road. The dog was lying on the right side of the road.. Plaintiff examined the road shortly afterwards, and the marks of the ear wheels showed that no attempt had been made to swerve the ear. No born had been

pounded. John Purcell, in evidence, said that he was a farmer, residing on the Levin-Foxton road. On the day in question he came out ot his property with his dog. He remained a few seconds to close the gate, and the dog ran across to the other side of; the road and stood facing him. There was at least room for two ears to pass between him and the dog if the ear kept to its proper side. He heard a ear coming along at a terrific speed, at least 35 miles an hour. The road at this spot was on a down grade of 4,feet in 80. He did not move from where he was, as he considered it too dangerous to venture on to the road. lie saw the ear when it was about fifteen yards from the cutting in which lie was. The dog was still standing still facing him. The next tiling he saw was the ear striking the dog, and he immediately apt off after the car on horseback to get. its number. The citr pulled up 00 or 70 yards further ■ on, and the driver, defendant, asked if lie had killed the dog. Plaintiff said “yes, he thought so.” Defendant said he was very' sorry, , but made no excuse or offered any payment. He said Hint' it was the first accident, he had had. Plaintiff then examined the road. The car had been travelling two or three feet, off . the centre of the road, on the wrong side. No horn had been sounded, iior* were the brakes . applied. There was no other traffic on the road at the timfe; and defendant r could hasily have seen the . dog J. 20 yards' away. The dog was- a valuable one. He had purchased the dog . two dr three months ago for £5, with a promise to pay another £5 if the dog proved suitable. Mr'Stamford, who appeared for defendant, pointed out that there \vfts ; n right-angled bend a short distance from the scene of the u.cci-

dent. He asked plaintiff if he knew what- speed defendant had come round the bend. Plaintiff did not know. Counsel then pointed out that it was 215 yards to where the} dog was killed from the cornel’. He asked witness if he had ever got up a speed of 35 miles an hour in a distance of 215 yards. Plaintiff said that he had never driven round the corner further than his residence. Mr Stamford: When rounding the corner, is it possible to see the cutting where you were? —Plaintiff: No.

Mr Stamford: You say you heard the car before you saw it, and that Mr Jefferson could see the dog at least 120 yards away? Plaintiff: Yes; 13.2 'yards, anyhow.

Mr Stamford: What steps then did you take to keep the valuable dog off the road?.

Witness said that l\e considered the dog' Was perfectly safe where it was. He did not whistle or call the dog because it would have been more dangerous.

Mr Stamford: Mr Jefferson said that he applied the brakes, and heard the wheels skidding before lie hit the dog. You examined the road. Did you notice the skid mark? Witness: No. Mr Stamford:"Didn’t you tell Air Jefferson that it was an accident, and that it could not be helped, and that you had bought the dog for £5? Witness said tlpit he wasn’t sure of that.

Mr Stamford: Didn’t you say that you had been after the dog for twelve months, but the owner wouldn’t sell it, and that later the owner had gone away and given the dog to a returned soldier, and that you had bought the dog from him? Witness: No, that’s absolutely wrong. He said that he bought the dog from Peter Neilson, (lie owner, and had never tried to get it from anyone else. He considered the accident was due to carelessness.

The Magistrate: On whose part?

Mr Stamford: Why do you claim £SO for a dog you gave £5 only for a few months ago? Witness said he had lo pay another £5 yet. Mr Stanford: Why hadn’t you paid the money before? Why didn’t the owner collect the money if it was owing, these hard times? Evidently the dog hadn’t proved himself:' worth it up to the time of the accident. As to the speed the ear was travelling at, that was a mere guess, wasn’t it”?

Witness said he guessed pretty accurately.

Jessie Mary Doughty said that on the day in question she was standing on Air Purcell’s property, quite close to the road. Shejieard a car approaching, and the next thing she saw was it going over the dog. The car pulled up, and she heard defendant say: “Have I killed him?” Defendant said that he knew what it was to lose a dog, and that he could handle a car with anyone. No horn was sounded. Defendant had plenty of time to pull off the road.

To Mr Stanford: The car was aliout half-way between the corner and (be top of the hill when she first saw it. It was only 10 to 12 seconds after that that the dog was run over.

Air Stamford said that there had not been one word of evidence to back up the value of £SO placed on the dog, and negligence had not been proved. It was an inevitable accident. The dog ran across the road, and in doing so was killed. The owner made no attempt whatever to whistle or call the dog, and such a highly valuable dog would surely have answered to its masters slightest, call. The defendant had driven a ear for 10 years, and had driven 100,000 miles, and never before met with any.accident. It was impossible to get up a speed of even 25 miles an hour at the spot mentioned. As soon as Air Jefferson saw .the man, li£ slackened up, and got as far away from him ns possible. Defendant said that on the 13th October he was on his way to Wellington. Tie remembered the corner on the Levin road. He slackened down lo about five miles an hour, as it was impossible to go round it fast. The road then rose slightly, and obstructed bis view until the top of the rise, and he was ten to 15 feet off’the plaintiff before lie was able to see him. As soon as he saw him lie slackened down, and turned off as far as possible from him. At the same time the dog ran out, and in a twinkling he was over it. He applied the brakes before, but released them as he passed over the dog, so as not to crush it. He was travelling about 20 miles an hour, and was 10 yards from the dog before he saw it. He pulled up in a few yards, and asked if he had killed the dog. There were two ladies on the road, and one called out that the dog was dead. A lien they were standing over the dog, plaintiff said that the dog was very valuable, but asked for no payment. He told him that the owner wouldn’t sell the dog to him, but later he, the owner, had gone away, and given the dog to another man. This man had got on the “bust,” and plaintiff had managed to get the dog from him for £5. Plaintiff told him that it was an accident, and that it could not be helped. He had no time to sound the horn, as it took him all his time to avoid the man. He would value the dog at £5.

'Mr Bergin asked if he had used his accelerator when going round the corner.

Witness said that he had not; he had just got up speed gradually. He was about ten yards from the dog, and the dog about seventeen or eighteen feet from Mr Purcell, when lie first saw it. The dog was cantering across the road. » Mr Bergin: That means that you

travelled 10 yards while the dog did 17 or 18 feet?

The Aragistrate said that if plaintiff’s statements were true, plaintiff had plenty of time to get the dog off the road, It was either an accident, or the plaintiff was not taking care of a valuable dog. It was strange that a dog bought for £5 a feu months ago should be.valued at £SO. Judgment was entered for defendant, with costs 3s, and expenses £3, and solicitor’s fee £3 3s.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19211126.2.18

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2360, 26 November 1921, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,600

CLAIM AGAINST A MOTORIST. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2360, 26 November 1921, Page 3

CLAIM AGAINST A MOTORIST. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2360, 26 November 1921, 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