BREDOW V. McCLUGGAGE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVII, Issue 2, 1 May 1915, Page 7

BREDOW V. McCLUGGAGE.

! Further evidence was taken yesteiday at the Magistrate’s Court, Stratford, before Mr \V. Cl, Kenrick, S.M., the hearing having been postponed from March 20th. In this case the I plaintiff, Walter Otto Bredow, claims from the defendant, Agnew McClugI gage, the sum of £3l Is on account |of damage alleged to have been sus--1 tained in a collision on September 13, 19M, between a motor car driven by defendant and a motor cycle driven by plaintiff. Defendant filed a counter claim for £3O 11s 9d. j Mr 11. Spence appeared for plaintiff. and Mr A. H. Johnstone (New Plymouth) for defendant, j TRichard James Mitchell, sworn. ■ said he wont to the scene of the accident next morning. The wheel marks were then plain, there having been no rain. The collision took place on the left-hand side of the road going from Douglas to Strathmore. The righthand wheel of the motor car was about two feet from the bank, and off the metal. This track could be traced hack about one and a half chains, still on tile same side of the road. M it- . ness traced the motor cycle hack from ' the scene of the collision for about S or 10 yards on the left hand side of the road from Douglas to Strathmore (the correct side). After that it was on the metal. At the point where the motor left the metal you could sec the road for about two or three chains towards Douglas. By Mr Johnstone: ft was not a narrow' road, but was about twenty feet from bank to bank. The bend at the bottom of the hill was not very sharp. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr A. H. Johnstone said that only two or three seconds was allowed to avoid an accident, and there could he no doubt that both parties were excited at the time. A motor cycle was built to carry one passenger, not two. He contended that a person was right to take the wrong side of the road in order to avoid an accident, and he was only supposed to show the judgment of an ordinary man.

Agnew McC luggage, the defendant, said that on September 13th he was driving a five-Aeater motor ear from Pohoknrn, having two passengers on board. He was coming down the hill slowly, at about fifteen miles per hour. At the place where the accident occurred, you could not see fnithei than a chain looking down the road. Witness was about a chain from the bend when he saw the cyclist, the distance between them being about two chains. The cycle was on the wrong side of the road as it came round the bend. It kept on the wrong side until it ran into the car. The car had then practically stopped. Witness did not hear any horn sounded, or any whistle. His engine was cut off at the time of the accident, and he had his foot on the brake coming down the hill. When ho saw the cycle on the wrong side, witness went on his wrong side. Plaintiff’s brother looked over the cycle rider’s shoulder, which seemed to upset the equilibrium of the machine. Witness thought the cycle could not come up the hill at 10 miles an hour, he thought it was going about 20 miles an hour. He had a conversation with the plaintiff and his brother, when plaintiff said; “You were on your wrong side.” Witness replied: “Certainly i was on my wrong side, but I wont over to avoid a collision with you, who was on the wrong side in the first place.” Plaintiff then said; “You should have stuck to your right side.” Witness replied that he was not going to stick to his correct side if lie could avoid an accident. It cost about £lO to repair the car. This was the first accident witness had had, and lie had been continually using a car for ten mouths prior to the' accident. By Mr Spence: The car was perfect in the steering gear, and had never been wrong in that part. The brakes wore in working order, and the car was well under control. If plaintiff had kept to his wrong side there would have been no collision. Plaintiff took a shot across the road from the metal, not at what witness would call a natural angle. The wheel marks showed this. The motor car was on the soft part of the road for over a chain. When he sighted plaintiff witness had kept corning gradually on the wrong side of the road. Marion Elizabeth Irvine, who was an occupant of tho defendant’s car, said the accident occurred shortly after they saw tho motor cycle. Witness saw tho cycle come round the corner on the wrong side. The motor car was not going quickly. The cycle came right across the road, going fairly quickly. Defendant went on to the wrong side of the road and put on the emergency brake. Defendant only I cut off the benzine at the steering wheel, Defendant acted at once, when ho saw the cycle. Witness took particular notice that the cycle was on the wrong side of the road, Ernest Crellin Robinson, civil engineer. said the bend at the bottom of the hill was fairly sharp. The distance between the car and tho cycle

when the drivers could see one iuiother would he two and a-hall ehidns, ou the assumption that both were iu the centre of the road. Were witness I going up the hill he would stick to his correct side if he were on a low Igear. The grade 0 f the hill was I about I in 15 or 1 in 20. ' Gordon Calvert, farmer, said he was [called to the scene of the accident. Defendant pointed out a mark close to the road and witness then said that it he had been in the same position he would have done the same. Curt Bredow. brother of plaintiff, had called on witness and said he had a paper lor him to sign, informing witness it was only to exonerate plahtiff with the X.Z. Loan and Mercantile Co. (the owners of the cycle. (This paper was handed in.) The witness had endeavored to get this paper back as soon ns he' knew plaintiff was taking legal action, but without success. By Mr Spence: Witness was npt a friend of the Bredows. He had measured the road before signing the statement, with the addition concerning measurements m it. What he had signed was diametrically opposite to the truth. He had signed it out of charity to the plaintiff. In the statement he had sworn to be true what was untrue. Prior to the rising of the Court, Mr Spence suggested that, owing to the conflict in the evidence, it would, perhaps, he hotter it the Magistrate would visit the scene. This was agreed to by Mr Johnstone, and Mr Kenrick said ho would endeavor to go out to the locality.