COLLISION AT WAIWAkAIKA
ACTION FOE £IOOO DAMAGES. THE WOOLDRIDGE-COLSON CASE. The action to recover £IOOO damages, brought by Ingram A. Colson against Ebenezer Wooldridge, for injuries alleged to have been received through the negligent driving of a motor car by one of defendant's employees, which wa« heard at the last sitting of the Supremo Court, and in which the jury failed to come to an agreement, came on for retrial at yesterday's sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth. Mr A. H. Johnstone (with him Mr. C. H. Croker) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. A. Bennett,represented defendant. The following jury was empannelled: —W. H. Beadle, W. C. Nixon, W. H. Blythe, P. J. Dean, H. Inch, C. L. C. Holt, B. Honeyfield, J. West, W. B. Cruickshank, R. A. Ward, A. J. Coad, WH. Huggett. Mr. Dean was chosen foreman.
The case was outlined by Mr. Johnstone, wiio said the occurrence took place on the night of March the 19th last. Plaintiff was riding home on his horse from Bell Block at about 9 o'clock. He kept on his proper side of the road all the way. He was going, at a walking pace as he crossed the Waiwakaiho Bridge. When he got well on to the bridge he saw the bright lights of a motor car approachihp- from the direction of Mew Plymouth. He drew his horse close against the parapet of tlie bridge on the Mountain side, andi as tlie driver continued to come on towards him he was right, over on his wrong side and Colson called out, "Pull out, pull out," but no notice was taken of the warning, and as the car passed him it struck him <lll the right leg and injured it severely, throwing him on to the paratifif of bridge. The car did: not step. Colson dragged himself to the New Plymouth end of the bridge and called for help. No other car than the one which struck him passed Colson on his way in from Bell Block that night. When Colson was found, and first aid had been rendered, lie was attended to by 3>r. Fonkos. who ordered his removal to the hospital- An examination of the bridge showed (he hoof marks of a horse, in the sandy portion of the road at the extreme edge of the roadway, pointing in the direction of New Plymouth. There was also a pool of blood at the point where the car was believed to have struck plaintiff, and further a piece of broKen hood stay from a Hudson car was also picked up on the bridge. While the examination of the bridge was taking place a car came from the direction of Waitara, and as it did not stop, although there were a number of people about in the vicinity, there was some feeling of curiosity. In consequence, Dr. Fookes, who was there at the time, followed the car and found it was No. T. 551. He also noticed that the hood' stay of the ear had been broken, and was tied up with new rope. This car belonged to Mr. Wooldridge, and it would be proved that it had gone to Waitara that."evening at about !) o'clock. From these facts yit would be shown that it must have been defendant's ear that struck plaintiff. The neglect of the driver of the car consisted in not driving on his proper side of the road, and in not keeping a proper look out. If he had kept a look out iie must have seen plaintiff coming across the bridge as the night was moonlight. The bridge was well lighted, and the car lights must have shone on to plaintiff. The amount of damages had been assessed on the amount of loss sustained by his incapacitation from the time of the accident.
Evidence was given by plaintiff, a share milker, residing at Fitzroy; E. W. M. Lysons. licensed surveyor, New Plymonth; George Bartlev, freezing works employee, Fitzroy: Robert John Bartley, factory foreman at the freezing works; Dr. E. F. Fookcs, medical practitioner, New Plymouth; Arthur John Harvey, assistant electrician 'at the freezing works, and previously a taxi-driver; Vivian Jensen, farmer, Fitzroy: Vincent Patrick Kelly, curate of the Roman Catholic Parish of New Plymouth: Myrtle Bartley, Fitzrov; and Ivy Colson, sister of the plaintiff. THE DEFENCE. Mr. Bennett, in opening the defence, admitted that the facts as set out for plaintiff and the evidence brought in support of the claim were to a certain extent correct. What the plaintiff had to prove, however, was what object caused the injury suffered by Colson, and how the injury was caused- Defendant and his driver denied absolutely the charges of neglect brought by plaintiff. Defendant, in fact, would say that it was not his car r.t all that struck Co'son. Counsel said he would put the same question now as had been put at the previous trial, which was, "Have they got the wrong car?" He then went on to show that in the evidence for plaintiff it was established that defendant's car never went at an excessive spend over the Waiwakaiho bridge, and that if was on its proper side of the road. Plaintiff himself had also said that the car which met him on the bridge was going at a terrific speed. Mr. Bennett then dealt briefly with the aspect of negligence in the case and the question of damages sustained by plaintiff. Evidence was then given by Leo Wilfred Walsh, driver of tlie motor car concerned'. and Evelvn Meads, who accompanied Walsh in the car on the night of the accident.
At this stage the hearing was adjourned till 9.45 this morning.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19200204.2.9
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, 4 February 1920, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
947COLLISION AT WAIWAkAIKA Taranaki Daily News, 4 February 1920, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Taranaki Daily News. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.