MOTOR CARS COLLIDE.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 May 1921, Page 6

MOTOR CARS COLLIDE.

A CLAIM FOB. DAMAGES. SUPREME COURT CASE. In the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, Mr. Justice Reed and a jury of four resumed the hearing (adjourned from the previous day) of the case in which Robert Leach, taxi driver, of Hawera, claimed £225 damages from Arthur Sagar and A. Haetie. The action was the sequel to a collision between Leach’s oar and Hastie’s car (driven by Sagar) in September last. Plaintiff alleged negligence against defendants. His statement of claim set out that of the total sued for £llB was for cost of repairs incurred to the car through the accident. Particulars of damages sustained to Leach’s car were given by J. Blackstock, motor mechanic. He said the machine, which was a Maxwell, was badly knocked about, the chassis being broken in three places. Mudguards, radiator, and the front of the engine were bent, and three tyres damaged. A passenger in Leach’s car, A. F. Fredericks, said they were on the middle of the asphalt, and when Sagar was seen coming he was going at about 35 miles an hour. Leach pulled on to his correct aide, and the collision occurred on that aide. Witness was out and rendered unconscious for some time; he did not know what happened afterwards, but “came to” while a lady was bandaging his head. He considered Sagar was on his wrong side. Evidence for plaintiff was also given by Ngawaka, Atahiri, and Iku Rangatai.

Mr. Croker moved for a non-suit as far as Hastic was concerned, on the ground that there was no evidence against him. His Honor agreed with this view, and upheld the non-suit, costs being allowed Hastie.

The defence on behalf of Sagar was outlined by Mr. Spratt. He said that one feature of the case was that they were able to get photographs, which were absolutely irrefutable evidence as to the position of the cars, having been taken by one of the occupants of Sagar’s car. In regard to the accident, the evidence of Sagar’s party, said counsel, would be that Sagar rounded the bend of the road (where 'he mishap occurred) on his correct side, and Leach, who was coming in the opposite direction, was on his wrong side of the road. In an endeavor | to avoid an accident, Sagar made a sharp turn to the right, and just at that moment Leach cut in qn the same side, the collision resulting/

D. M. Cunningham, photographer, of Hawera, who was one of the occupants of Sagar’s car and took the photos after the collision, gave evidence in support of defendant’s case.

Cross-examined by Mr. O’Dea, he said he did not know whether Sagar was “cutting out the pace” in order to try to catch up to some friends who had gone on ahead. He did not think any reasonable man would drive where Leach was driving. Evidence in support of the defence was given by J. S. Murray, surveyor, Hawera; C. S. Day, accountant, Hawera (passenger with Sagar); J. Blythe, photographer, Hawera (also passenger in Sagar’s car), and T. R. Exley, retired farmer, of Hawera, who was on the scene just after the accident.

Defendant (Arthur Sagar) gave an account of the accident on the lines of the statement made by his counsel. He said originally he was on his correct side of the road and Leach was on the wrong side. He turned to avoid a collision and Leach also swung round. After the smash he said to plaintiff: “You have, made a fine job of it now: what were you thinking about?” To this Leach replied that he just shut his eyes and went for the bank. Witness had had eight years’ experience of motor driving, during which he was concerned in onlv one accident. Answering Mr. O’Dea, witness said that the previous accident mentioned happened three or four years ago. He admitted that as the result of it he was fined £5 for negligent driving. He denied that he generally drove at the rate of about 40 miles an hour, and that he had quite a number of narrow escapes from accidents. He did not think .he was known about Hawera as a very fast driver. On one occasion the Essex car which he drove on the day of the recent accident had done fifty miles an hour. Defendant’s evidence had been concluded when the Court rose at 5.45 p.m. till to-day.