CASE CUT SHORT

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 16, 11 September 1931, Page 3

CASE CUT SHORT

acc1dent -5equel DAMAGES CLAIM AGAINST - ROTORUA SOLICITOR FAILS JUDGE BELIEVED DEFENDANT In the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday before His Honour, Mr Justice Smith, Martin Heywood Hampson, solicitor, of Rotorua, successfully defended a claim for £180 damages arising out a motor collision, brought by Michael James Wilson, farm manager, of Ngongotaha. Mr Eric Roe, of Rotorua, appeared for plaintiff, Wilson, and Mr H. P. Richmond, of Auckland, for defendant. The claim arose out of a motor collision that took place on the night of December 11. According to Mr Roe, plaintiff was riding a horse from Rotorua to Ngongotaha shortly after midnight when he saw a car with glaring lights approaching along the broad, straight road and pulled ovdr to his proper side. When about 80 feet away the car swerved to its wrong' side and struck and killed plaintiff's horse, five feet frorn- the edge of the road on plaintiff's proper side. Plaintiff was injured -seriously and for ten days lay in hospital. Case For Defence For the defence Mr Richmond contended that where one party to a collision was on his wrong side of the road up to a certain point, the other party was justified in moving to his wrong side in order to try and avoid an accident. Defendant saw the horseman in front of him on the wrong side and by moving further over to that side, Hampson would only have turned his headlights more on to the horse. There was ample room on the other side to pass the horse. The rider had his head down and the horse was galloping along towards him, apparently not under full control. Defendant concluded the rider was drunk. He swerved to avoid the horse when the animal galloped right into him. Two bottles of beer were later picked up at the scene of the accident. -Evidence along the lines of their respective counsel's outline was led from plaintiff and defendant. After leading defendant's evidence, Mr Richmond was -proeeeding to eall further witnesses when His Honour 8 intimated that he did not consider it necessary to proceed further. He had, he said, formed an opinion on tho facts. It was merely the statement of plaintiff against defendant and of the two he preferred to believe defendant. Judgment was given for defendant with costs.