SEQUEL TO MOTOR COLLISION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3050, 19 June 1926, Page 3

SEQUEL TO MOTOR COLLISION.

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. DECISION RESERVED. Tie sequel to the motor collision which occurred on the Whirokino Bridge one Sunday in March last wasi heard in the local S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., when I. D. S. Cooksley claimed £3B Gs, which was reduced! at the hearing to £2B Gs, damages from H. W. Brown, of Wellington. A counter-claim of £67 was entered by" defendant. Mi'. Merton appeared for plaintiff and Mi'. Bergin for defendant. In evidence, I. D. S. Cooksley farmer, of Mangawhata said that on the morning of the 21st March, accompanied by Messrs Parletto and Corlett, he left home in his car for Levin. They reached the Wjhirokino Bridge about live to eleven. Just as they were going on to the bridge witness saw defendant’s car on the centre of the bridge and approaching witness’s car. After travelling half the distance between them the approaching car swerved side on, skidded the rest of the distance and struck plaintiff’s oar. At the time witness’s ,ear was stationary and hard up against the wheel guard of the bridge. There was ample room for two cars to pass provided care was taken. Estimated the speed of defendant’s car at 30 to 35 miles per hour. Witness drove 33 feet on to the bridge before pulling up. It was raining at the time and the bridge was slippery. Witness then gave details of the damage done to his ear and the cost of repairs. The S.M. said that the statement of cost for' repairing the car ap-

peared to be very reasonable. To Mr. Bergin witness said that it was impossible to see anything on the bridge, when approaching it, until the bridge itself was reached. Witness passed a motor lorry beforel negotiating the approach and his speed at this time was about eight miles an hour. Would have hacked off the bridge if he had had time to do so.

The S.M.: What gear were you in? —Top. The S.M.: I don’t think your car could go at that speed in top gear. Continuing, witness said that he had measured the length of the bridge since the accident, but not the width. It was wide enough for two cars to pass on. To Mr. Bergin: About 20 cars passed witness’s car after the accident. After the smash the cars were side by side, with witness’s front wheel inside defendant’s car’s back wheel. Even then both cars did not block the full width of the bridge. There was about two feet to spare on defendant’s side.

The S.M. said he could not understand why plaintiff had not measured the width of the bridge. In further evidence, witness said that he had jacked defendant’s car out and defendant then departed and never offered plaintiff any assistance. Witness reported the accident to the police, who up till about 7 p.m., had not heard anything of defendant. S. L. Corlett, factory manager, of Mangawhata, gave corroborative evidence. He was a passenger in plaintiff’s car at the time of the accident. It appeared to witness as if defendant had put his foot brake on when he first sighted the other car and when about two chains away had applied his emergency brake, causing his car to swerve sideways and skid. Defendant could not have pulled up at the speed he was travelling. To Mr. Bergin: Both cars completely blocked the bridge after the accident. Had to climb round the hand-rail of the bridge to get t.o the back of the ears. Plaintiff’s brakes were in good order. E. F. Partlctto, another passenger in plaintiff’s car, also gave similar evidence.

Cross-examined, he said that plaintiff did not become excited prior to the smash. It was possible to sec anything on the bridge when ascending the metal approach. Defendant’s car could not be seen when plaintiff’s car was negotiating the approach. C. A. Pearson gave evidence that the charges in connection with the repair of plaintiff’s car were reasonable. The S.M,: The most: reasonable claim I have seen in twelve months.

Mr. Bergin said (hat* the approach was steep and narrow with an angle to the left partially obscuring the view. When near the top of the approach, however, it was possible to see a car on the bridge. Defendant, IT. W. Brown, merchant, of Wellington, said that the full width of the bridge was .11 feet and if was impossible for two moving cars to pass at the spot where (lie accident occurred. There was no traffic on the bridge when he entered; it, but when on the crown of the structure he saw plaintiff’s car about 30 feet from the other end. Witness went on about 10 yards towards the other car before he attempted to stop his car when it skidded. ITe was travelling at 15 mlies per hour at the time. Estimated the damage done to his car at £52. To Mr. Merton: Measured the length of the bridge, with his speedmeter and the width with a two foot rule. Eased up and put. the brakes on as soon, as he saw plaintiff’s car. Could not travel fast on the bridge. Pulled up in much less than 15 yards. Possessed a driver’s license. Admitted he had lost it once, but said that he got it back again. Had; been driving for .15 years and had had an accident before. The S.M. said lie would look into the matter. This was the second bridge case that had come before him in a week. Decision would be reserved