SEQUEL TO AN ACCIDENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 10 November 1915, Page 6

SEQUEL TO AN ACCIDENT.

A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. At the Magistrate ,'s Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr. A.' Crooke, S.M., F. H. Jellyman (Mr. Apt'. Lawrey) proceeded against R. F. Roebuck (Mr. A. H. Johnstone), claiming £7 damages for the loss of a cow, alleging that the animal's death was caused by defendant's servant negligently and unskilfully driving a motor waggon. Evidence at some length was taken showing that on August 4 a servant of the defendant was driving a motor waggon to New Plymouth and 011 the Petone Hill he met a drove of cattle in charge of a servant of the plaintiff. One beast was run over by the waggon and had to <be destroyed. The defence was that there had not been negligence on the part of defendant's servant. He was driving through the cattle very slowly—at three miles an hour—and the animal ran backwards and forwards in front of the waggon. A dog was employed to round up the cattle, and the defence contended that the beast injured was knocked over by other cows and thrown in front of the waggon. Only the fore wheel of the vehicle passed over the cow. In giving judgment the Magistrate said the evidence showed that the waggon dodged the cow two or three times, but on reaching the foot of the hill the driver of the vehicle considered the road clear enough to justify an attempt to get through. On approaching the cows a dog rounded up the animals, and the cow injured fell in front of the waggon, the front wheel going over it._ The whole point was whether the driver of the waggon could have avoided an accident. He saw the herd of cattle at the bottom of a steep hill, but he still drove on in the hope of getting a passage through the cattle. The wav was not clear, and therefore it was his duty to stop. But the driver of the waggon chose to drive on, and he did so at his own lisle. If he had stopped the accident would not have happened Judgment was given for plaintiff for £7 and costs £2 6s.