HORSEMAN v. CAR.

Shannon News, 21 August 1923, Page 3

HORSEMAN v. CAR.

UP RIGHT UF WAY. in tuie Magistrate's Court, J.evin, on 'Hhiusday, Ernest Henry .•Saint, farmer, of ohau, claimed, the sum oi £1 lUa from Robert Edwards, architect,. J.'a inters ton North, lor alleged depreciation in the value oi a horse, caused -by defendant, iorcing n oh a bridgoi aad so making it cat-.shy. Mr A. E. Adams appeared iur tlie planum, the deiendant conuueting ills own case.

Counsel lor the plaintih, in opening the case, said his client was riding across the Ohau bridge, when deienuant's car came on to it. Deiendant refused to hack, and eventually lorced plaintiff's horse off the bridge, causing tliei injury complained oi'. ■

Ernest Henry Saint gave evidence that vvuen he'was crossing the bridge on the 12th May lie saw a ear approaching, and put his burse into a trot .tp get across .before it could come on to the. bridge. • The car instead ol stopping came right on. He protested and reminded the driver that it was only a lair tiling , to him to allow him tu get over the bridge. Deiendant told him to gen oh tire bridge or he would run him oh. He then 'came on, and witness was lorced to turn his horse round and ride oh the bridge. The car i'oilowed at a speed which lorced bun to ride at a dangerous pace on the wet bridge. Since then his horse had been car shy, and on one occasion on meeting • a car* had jumped clean oh the road. Previous, to thh thef horse had not been frightened oi cars. As a ratepayer he thought this matter should be brought under public nolice, as there was a lot ol this son oi thing going on.

The Bene;i: Why did you not bring this action under then by-laws then, if you were only thinking of the public? Witness: 1 had no consider Hie damage done to my horse. The Bench: Why did you not ride past? IF the horse was' not car-shy and there was room to pass, why did you, not, do s.o? It seems to me that plaintiff'knew there was a by-law and was trying to uphold it This'did not prevent him from taking the present action, but- if be only wanted to uphold the by-law, it! could be done otherwise.

Cross-examined, witness said the horse was five years old. He was oh the bridge when he saw the car approaching, and raised a trot to get off before they reached their end of the bridge Defendant stopped th,' - car alter he held up his hand lor him., to do so.

Deiendant: Did you not become abusive?? Was it not a fact tha.r you told me that you were a ratepayer, and that I had no right on the bridge. ■ Witness: No.

Defendant: You admit that the horse was not out of hand. He did not play, up or anything. WitnrsS: No,, he was not ear-shy before Dhi«,

De'feimanl: Now was it not merely that you were angry, and so started the trouble P..

Witness: No, f brought-the actionin the inreivsts ol the community. W. N. Anderson, County Engineer, sworn,' ga.v c evidence that there was a great deal of trouble laiely about cars passing horses on bridges, and in several cases, accidents had very nearly occurred. According to the by-laws of the Horowheiiua County, a car was noti supposed to come on to a bridge when a horse, either ridden or in a vehicle, was on it. In answer to defendant, he stated that the widHi of the bridge in question was i?)ft.

Uubeit Edwards, defendant, deposed to having approached one end of the bridge as plaintiff came to the other end.. The car ran on-a short distance, but was pulled up when about one-third of the distance across. Plaintiff came up and shouted, "Go back. Go back. You have no right on the. bridge. I am a ratepayer!" There appeared to be plenty of room for him to get past and the horse was perfectly quiet. That he (the deiendant) had heen abusive was incorrect!. Plaintiff then turned and rode oil' the bridge.

Mr Adams : You have made a nice quiet story of. it. Do you deny that you tooted your horn? . Witness: 1 was not driving the car, bui I do not think that the horn was tooted.

Mr Adams: You deny that the driver was excited and kept on tooting the horn? Witness: Yes. The only one who was excited was your client.

V. R. Edwards, son of the 'defendant, £O.Vfv evidence that plain tin was coming on to the bridge from one end as he came on to it from the other. He had run on for about onethird oi the length of the bridge and had then pulled up. Plaintiff had told them\ to get back, and they had asked him if he could not ride past. To Mr Adams: He had stopped the cat" as soon as possible which accounted for the fact that he had not got further than on,e<-third across the bridge. Plaintiff'had. refused to pass, alhough. there was room, and had then turned round and ridden off. He had followed at about four or five miles per hour. Iji was not correct that the' plaintiff had had to canter to keep ahead.

W. Tantrum, taxi-driver, Levin, deposed to having been approaching the bridge at the time of the lrouble, and saw plaintiff corning off the bridge. He was travelling at an easy pace. He. did not hear the horn footed. Constable; Bagrie. said the matter had been reported to him, -and he had made inquiries and submitted the case to the Inspector in Palmerston North as one of negligent driving. He was informed that tho police would not take the case up, but that the plaintiff might if he so desired. Defendant: That means, that the case is a trivial one. .

Constiable Bagrie: No to my'mhid. I know the bridge, and I know horses and I consider that it was dangerous tio attempt to pass on the bridge. Defendant protested that it was hard on him that, he should "be brought down here on such a charge. The Bench: You might liaye been.

brought, down under the by-laws. It seems to me that in this Case judgment must be given for defendant. Apparently plaintiff knew the law and tfhought he should argue it out. If the horse has become shy, it is the plaintiff's own fault. The case will he given for defendant without costs.