CAR AND TRUCK

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 209, 28 April 1932, Page 6

CAR AND TRUCK

("Continued) a three-seater coupe standing about thiee feet from the bank, and about 12 feet from what appeared to have been the point of impact in the accident. A damaged lorry was standing nearby. He traced the wheel marks of the three-seater car back for 12 paces. These marks absolutely satisfied him that the three-seater hact • been travelling on the left hand side at the time of the accident. There was plenty of room on the road for two cars to pass safely. The impact appeared to have occurred on the lorry just behind the cab. The lorry did not appear to be badly damaged, and he certain'y did not think it was damaged to the extent of £50. In reply to Mr. Davys, the witness said that he had not noticed that the lorry had an overhang of timber. He would not say that the corner requlred especial care. He had had no particular conversation with Hamilton, who was only known to him as an acquaintance. Clarence C'o.'hns Bach, a commercial traveller, said that he had been travelling with the previous witness, when they had come upon the scene of the accident. He had examined the two damaged vehicles and noted the marks on the road. He saw marks on the bank on the inside which had obviously been made by the running bdard and hood of the three-seater. The lorry was scarcely damaged anu certainly not to the extent of £50. In reply to Mr. Davys, the witness said that at the point of impact, he estimated that the driver's road vision would be about 12 feet. Joseph Pigot Ballantyne, who was also with the two previous witnesses, on their way to Auckland, corroborated their evidence. He said that the marks definitely indicated that the car had been on its corect side. Case For Defendant

This closed Mr. Goldstine's case and Mr. Davys opened and called hi's first witness. John Wilson Reynolds, a Pub'ic Works Department employee, said that on the date of the accident about 4.45 p.m., he had noticed the plaintiff's car further back on the hill road Hamilton was travelling at an excessive speed, despite the fact that there were danger signs on the road showing that pumice was being laid down. Hamilton was travelling so fast that he skidded when passing witness's lorry, which was parked on the side of the road. The car was being driven at a faster speed than that of the service cars on the road. Cross-examined, witness said that he was working about three miles further back from the scene of the accident. He knew Hardie, but was not particularly a friend of his. Andrew Davidson Hardie, the defendant, said that on the date of the accident, he was proceeding from Rotorua to Whakatane with a load of timber. Approaching the corner, he sounded the horn continuouslj and reduced his speed to about 12 m.p.h. as he reached the corner. He also swung out, allowing reasonable room for a car to pass. He had a good view of the road and saw the plaintiff's car when it was i about a chain away. It then appeared to be travelling very fast. He knew that he had not time to acceleratc and get past so he applied his brakes and T-ulled up the truck in half its length. Severe Impact The truck was completely stationary when it was struck by the car. Witness characterised as "ridiculous" Hamilton's statement that he was only travelling at 15 m.p.h. He considered it was travelling at more than 30 m.p.h. and it did not slacken speed. The impact was so severe that it 1 buckled the car from end to end and shifted back the whole body and load of the truck, from the cab, a distance of four inches. Witness remarked to Hamilton that he was "hitting it up" and Hamilton admitted it and said that his brakes were no good. In a : further conversation, Hamilton practically aslced witness to admit liability and see whether he coulci "wrangle" some insurance. Witness afterwards crawled under Hamilton', car to release the brakes which wero "bound." The brakes were in very r vorduioa. SuLstquently, vtii ness took his ,orry to a coach builder and a garage, and had to have extensive repairs carried out. Witness hao a cream contract and while his lor'y • w&s out of commission, he had to hi'e and pay for other. trucks to carry oi this business. In addition he wa; forced to pay an add'tional drivcr as he could not obtain one lorrv large enough for his purposes and hau i to use two smaller machines. In his ' opinion, if the collision had occurred head-on, none of the occupants oi 1 the car would have lived to tell tln • tale. In reply to Mr. Goldstine, the defendant said he considered the lorrj was nine feet out from the bank a. the front, and probably less at the rear. He admitted that after tno accident the car was so close to the bank that he had to squeeze round to get under it. It was not a fact that he was on his wrong side and that his truck was moving so slowly that he could not accelerate to avoid thr car. Hamilton had suggested to witness that he should ring from Auckland on h's return and inform wit ness of the position with regard to insurance. W'tness reiterated that he had told Hamilton that he would fce awav, but said he could not expla-n why, if that was so, Hamilton should have spent money on a toll call frcir Auckland. The insurance company had paid for t^e repairs to his truck He admitted he had driven on to Whakatane with the machine and .driven back. Witness also admitted that he had s'gned a discharge str.ting the truck was repaired to his satisfaction He adnrtted that in Feb Tuary he had claimed for £135 8s 6dbut said he had been obliged to in-c-ear.e tMs later as it has been discovered tho.t the housing of the rear axle was bent. Questioned further he admitted that he had stated that he world accent £135 8s 6d in February in full settlement, but he had undcrstcod that an allowance Was to be made fov any later defects which miglit develop. At this stage the court was ad'journed. - i