JURY FINDS FOR DEFENDANT

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 36, 12 February 1937, Page 7

JURY FINDS FOR DEFENDANT

Injured Motor-cyclist’s Large Claim Fails SEQUEL TO COLLISION ON FOXTON HIGHWAY. After a retirement of half-an-hour, a verdict for defendant was given by the jury in the Supreme Court yesterday in the caso in which Robin Spencer Chrystall, a farmer of Himatangi, a married man with one child, claimed from Brian Leslie Everton, Foxtou butcher, £284 special damages and £2500 general damages. The claim arose from an accident on December 10, 1935, when a car owned by Everton and driven by George Joseph Lamb, as his agent, driving towards Foxton from Himatangi, collided with a motor-cycle ridden by plaintiff in the opposite direction. The caso was heard before His Honour Air Justice Johnston and the following jury: Messrs E. A. Shackleton (foreman), A. A. Coles, A. G. Brown, E. C. Hambling, M. Abraham, S. D. Alcock, G. W. B. Archibald, W. Pirie, D. J. Power, N. L. E. Munn, H. Rainforth, D. G. Cornish. When the caso resumed yesterday morning, evidence was given by Nelson Arthur Batchelar, farmer, of Oroua Downs, whose place Robinson and Lamb had visited prior to the accident. After he had supplied a fuse, the car left with the right-hand headlight., two parking lights, and the tail-light burning, ail dimly. A cycle mechanic salesman, Harold Hamer, of Foxton, said that when returning home from Palmerston North, he arrived on the scene of the accident, he saw a side-skid mark on the road where something had apparently been pushed sideways. It was eight feet from tho left-hand side as he travelled towards Foxton. Near the centre of the road lay a few pieces of glass. The car was then off the roadway to the right, lacing Foxton. Only Robinson and Lamb were preseut then; Constable Owen arrived a few minutes later.

A motor mechanic in Levin for 20 years, Stanley Stilwell, who examined and repaired Everton’s car after the accident, declared that to back it for 75 yards under its damaged condition was an absolute impossibility.

This concluded the evidence for the defence.

By the permission of the Court, plaintiff 's father, John Chrystali, was called by Mr Cooper. He declared that he had removed no glass from the roadway; he had not seen even a particle of it lying on the bitumen. The only thing he had removed was the magneto, which was near the centre of the roadway. It was incorrect that Lamb had asked him to remove nothing. Lamb had not spoken to him. He did nothing to destroy any evidence on the roadway as to where the accident occurred. The luncheon adjournment was taken after counsel had uddressed the jury. “An Extraordinary Story.’’ * 1 Superficially it appears that this man is claiming money for injuries received through his own fault,” declared His Honour in summing up in the afternoon. No jury would expect one man to pay for injuries suffered by another through his own fault. Plaintiff had frankly recognised this, and it had led him to tell an extraordinary story if he was to bo believed. Chrystali at the same time had frankly admitted that he took a risk in riding an unlighted motor-cycle, which was in itself an extremely negligent act. Yet he wished the jury to believe that this negligence was in no way the cause of the accident, that the negligence of some other person wus entirely responsible. Curing His Own Negligence. * ‘ The story he asks you to believe is one that would practically remove him from the category ox a user of the road altogether—that he was off the road himself, was followed there and was practically massacred at the roadside. That is what he usks you to believe in order to cure his own negligence.” His Honour pointed out to the jury that they must be perfectly sure that plaintiff’s negligence in no way contributed to the accident, and moreover that the other people were negligent, before they could find for plaintiff, it was plaintiff’s responsibility to prove he had not. contributed negligence before he could receive a verdict. It was very difficult t_o find a case where the lack of a light by either one of two parties on a road was not an act of contributory negligence if an accident surred. It was not sufficient, as counsel for plaintiff had paid at one stage, that if Chrystali could prove he rode carefully on the correct side, to assume his negligence did not contribute to the accident. Plaintiff said he saw the car first when it was 100 yards away from him. It was then in the middle of the road. To cure his owif negligence, he promptly went off the roud into tho lupins. ‘ * llis story practically asks you to believe that as he went into the lupins, the motor car chased him there,” said His Honour. “How is that confirmed V The only confirmation was plaint iff*** own evidence. Aloreover, was it possible that defendant's car could have been shifted, as plaintiff affirmed, to confuse later arrivals as to the exact scene of the impact. “If so, it was a cleverly conceived plot and oue quickly executed in every detail,” said His Honour, reminding the jury of the evidence as to the incapacity of the car when removed. The plaintiff also inferred that the car was repaired in Levin instead of in Foxton in order to conceal its real There was no positive evidence of the accident occurring by the lupins; no marks were discovered in the sand.

“A lot of insinuations were made in this case which 1 thought were scarcely justified,” said His Honour. “There was a lot of evidence which appears to me partially irrelevant. That is the evidence as to the conversations which took place after the accident. However, the allegation against Robinson, who is a business man of experience and was not financially interested in the case, that, as Chrystali was being placed in the ambulance, he asked the injured man to have the matter hushed up, is a serious one. Whether or not it is to be believed remains with you.’’ The jury retired at 2.55 p.m., return-