SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 297, 18 July 1929, Page 4

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

DAMAGES CLAIMED.

Plaintiff Awarded £5. A sequel to a collision that took place between a motor lorry and a motor car on November 8 was Heard at tne July sitting of the Magistrate's Court at Putaruru on Thursday, before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M.

Ueorge Leslie Martin (Mr. J. S Reid) claimed from Mrs. Clara Edwards (Mr. J. R. O. Lochhead), £l9 Ids 6d damages to the lorry and incidental loss during the time the use of the lorry was not available. By way of alternative claim £5 13s 6d was claimed, this being the sum alleged to have been agreed to by the parties at the time of the collision. George Leslie Martin, carrier, who gave evidence said that on November 8 he was driving a motor lorry on the road in question when he collided with Mrs. Edwards’ car. The witness then explained the details on a plan. He did all he could to avoid a collisnn. He was in second gear at the time, going at a speed of about ten miles an hour. The vision was obscured by a ban]p. He first saw the ■defendant’s car when it was right on top of him. Mrs. Edwards endeavoured to turn to the left on seeing the lorry, but it was too late to avoid a collision Mrs. Edwards’ car was thrown eight inches across the road. The lorry was damaged. The witness drove" Mrs. Edwards’ car to the foot of the hill. Witness suggested that if the defendant paid £5 it would be satisfactory. The damage to the lorry was due to the collision, not to striking the bank, which was fairly soft. The lorry was out of commission for five days, witness estimating the less due to this at £3 per day. io Mr. Lochhead: The vehicles came together, though there was not a straight out collision. If the witness had not turned the defendant’s car would have not have been worth a “ fiver.” He did not give any warning of his approach. Mrs. Edwards’ car was damaged to the extent of a bent mudguard. The road was not a particularly busy one. He denied that the trouble was due to not keeping a proper lookout. The witness detailed the steps taken after the collision. Though a conversation took place the witness could not remember the details of the same. He' denied that it was agreed

that the collision was due to the fault of. both. Mrs. Edwards did all that was possible after the collision. Though he was not sure, witness thought the time would be 5 p.m. The weight of the lorry would be about 2 h tons (laden). To Mr. Reid: The defendant did not sound her horn. Harry Martin, a brother of tne previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. Edgar Rehner, motor mechanic, Putaruru, gave evidence as to repairing the damaged lorry. In outlining the case for the defence, Mr. Lochhead stated that it would be that both parties at tne time of the collision stated that the responsibility was a joint one. He called Mrs. Clara Edwards, who gave evidence stating that b?th we*e on the crown of the road, the witness keeping to her right side, whilst Martin went into the bank. Witness tated that both apologised, agreeing that the fault was 50-50. Witness’ mudguard struck the back of *he lorry. The witness seated that Martin said that £2 would cover the cost of the bent axle. To Mr. Reid: The car stopped "ight behind the lorry, otherwise witness’ car would have gone over the bank. Both were going dead slow at the time, otherwise the accident would have been a serious one. John Roberts, the passenger in Mrs. Edwards’ car, gave corroborative evidence. The Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for £5 and costs.