Second Edition. KILLED BY A MOTOR.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 87, 3 April 1914, Page 6

Second Edition. KILLED BY A MOTOR.

A DOC'S VALUE CLAIMED. At the Court this morning G. H. Stringer (Mr Spratt) claimed from J. T. Martin (Mr Stanford) a sum of £lO, the value of a dog which was killed through heing run over by defendant's motor car. George Harold Stringer, drover. Hawera, the plaintiff, gave evidencethat on March 4th he put some cattle in a paddock in Stratford and then went up to Brannigan's on Pembroke Road, to get a key. He and Br'annigan took some calves up towards the Mountain and when returning the motor car came along. Two of his dogs were about two chains ahead o ! him. They were walking on the left side of the road. The car overtook then suddenly. It ran very quietly and the horn was not sounded. The speed was twenty to twenty-five milean hour. They had to step off the road to avoid the car. Witness tfhen thought of the dog, but did not whistle, because if he had been whistled to he would have stopped and turned round and then could not dodge the car. Just before the car reached the dog two short blasts were given on the horn. The car did not swerve before reaching the dog, but did so afterwards. Defendant could easily have swerved, as there was ample room on the road. Brannigan called out, and the ladies On the back seat of the car looked round, but the car did not stop and turned out .of the road. Witness could not see the number of the car—it was going too fast. When picked up the dog seemed to have broken its back. When approached pn the matter later in the day defendant said he knew he had run over a dog, but did not know be had killed it. Defendant also said that he did not stop because h did not think the dog was hurt. He refused at first to make an offer for damages, holding that he was nr. liable. Later on he offered witnr a pup three months old. Witnes" said the pup would not be of any use to him, and told defendant that he would have to take steps to make him pay. At the time witness told defendant that he valued the dog at £lO. The dog was a red kelpie, about fifteen months old, and had been jerking for about three months. It had; bepn • bought in Melbourne, costing £2 as a pup. It was onesixteenth part dingo blood; this blood being mixed in order to improve the feet. It cost about £6 to land the dog in Hawera. By Mr Stanford: Dingoes might have no good points, but all the dingo in the-dog. in question would not harm. him. There were two ladies in the car—he was sure that there was not only one*- Ten pounds was not a fancy price. He had paid the price for a dog which he still had ir his possesison. , Counsel: I suggest that defendant is a careful driver and that he has driven his car for four thousand miles withrihtfVunnirig over anything;.

Witness: About twelve months ago at\ Midhirst he ran over a dog be loneittej rfeo Prere. Counsel: Defendant will thai he ever rah over a dog before or that he had had a ear for a' year. John Brannigan substantially corroborated plaintiff's evidence. George DoUglas, drover, Hawera. said the .dog killed was easily worth £lO.

This closed the case for plaintiff. John ThoVasf-Martih.- farmer,, Pembroke Tfond, the plaintiff, gave evidence thai about noon on March 4th he was proceeding to Toko in his car accompanied hy Mr and Miss Divehall Miss Divehall was on the back seat and Mr Divehall on the front seat. They WereHhe only occupants of the ear. Just before passing Stringer and Brannigan witness saw a dog going along in front of them. The car was going.at the rate of from eighteen to twenty miles. After passing, the men the speed was reduced to about fourteen miles. Before coming up with the dog witness sounded the horn sei*eral times, but the dog took no notice. His left wheels were then on the crown of the road. The dog jumped in towards the car making across the road. He did his best to avoid the dog. He did not think the dog had been hurt and therefore did not stop, the car. He was sure the speed was only about fourteen mil<js an hour, and that his car was under perfect control. By Mr Spratt: Witness would say tha,t the men on the road'could not see the dog as weir as he could. The car. was raising a good deal of dust, and after passing the dog nobody in the car • could see through the dust when they tried to see the dog. Half a chain before reaching the dog the car was swerved off, giving the dog half the road.

Henry Divehall, carpenter, Toko, gave similar evidence.

When the Court resumed after lunch witness Dmehall was cross-ex-amined. He told counsel that he considered that he had a better chance of watching events than the man on . the road, who could-hardly see'through ' the dllSt.

Victoria Divehall, daughter of the previous witness, also, went into the witness-box, her evidence just being concluded when the Court rose, the cjko being adjourned till the next sitting.