WAIWAKAIHO COLLISION.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 February 1920, Page 6

WAIWAKAIHO COLLISION.

COLSON-WOOLDRIDGE ACTION. A VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. The Colson v. Wooldridge action for £IOOO damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligent driving of a motar car by Leo Walsh, an employee of the defendant, was continued in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday before his Honor Mr. Justice Sim and a common jury of twelve. Mr. A. H. Johnstone (with him Mr. C. H. Croker) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. A. Bennett represented defendant. Additional evidence for the defence was given by Reginald Day, chief Borough In.-|icetor for New Plymouth; Wm Patrick Kelleher, a passenger in the car on the night of the accident; George Gibson, taxi garage proprietor, New Plymouth, and Andrew Smith, motor garage proprietor, New Plymouth. The latter, who was a new witness, deposed that ho lived about a quarter of a mile from the Waiwakaiho bridge and from his had; a good view of the road from the bridge to the Mangaone Hill on the Waitara side. He heard screams on the night of the accident, and on coming out of his house, saw two cars going along the road' towards Waitara; one was fthout 300 yards over the bridge and the other about half a mile further on. In reply to Mr. Johnstone, witness said he did not go down to the bridge on the night of the accident. The scream he heard was in no way associated with the accident- He could not say definitely what time in the evening he heard the screams, but thought it might have been about nine o'clock. After the addresses by counsel, his Honor summed up, submitting three questions to the fury as follow: 1. Are you satisfied the plaintiff was in jurcd in the way in which lie says, by collision with a motor ear? 2. Is it made out to your satisfaction that, the injury received was caused by the car driven by Walsh? 3. If you are satisfied on these points, then you must consider the question of damages. His Honor then traversed the evidence, which was given on these points. The jury retired at 12 noon and returned at 3 p.m. with a unanimous verdict for plaintiff, and a ten to two majority on the question. of damages, which were assessed at £7oO. Costs were allowed accordin? to scale, and it was agreed that each side should pay their own costs of Hie first trial.