INGLEWOOD.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 March 1922, Page 8

INGLEWOOD.

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. - YESTERDAY’S SITTING. (From Our Own Correspondent.) March 13. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held at Inglewood to-day, before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following undefended cases: Repatriation Department v. R. H. Thompson, £59 Ils 7d (costs £4 17s 6d) ; C. B. Lumsden v. G. Bennett, £5 17s 6d (costs £1 13s 6d) ; Paterson and Grant v. C. A. Lurcher,, £2 19s 4d (costs £2 Os 6d) ; Inglewood County Council v. H. F. Voitrekousky, £ll 13s lid (costs £2 18s); A. C. Surrey v. J. H. Robson, £4 19s 9d (costs £1 3s 6d); same v. J. C. Rowe, £7 Is 9d (costs £1 10s 6d) ; Sutherland Bros. v. Charles Longstaff, £l6 13s Id (costs £2 18s). In judgment summons cases, in which the judgment debtors did not appear, orders were made as follows: .lobert Mainby, at the suit of Adolph Millar, to pay £4 15s 6d forthwith, in default five days’ imprisonment; J. W. Dodd, at the suit of Drake Bros., to pay £2 13s lOd, in default three days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended for seven days after service of order. Frank Goodwin, for riding a motorcycle in Rata Street without a light, was convicted and fined £1 and costs 7s. Gordon Lett, for a similar offence, was convicted and fined 30s and costs 7s. MOTOR COLLISION CASE. A motor collision which occurred on the Piako bridge near Tariki formed the basis of a claim and counter-claim. Charles Therkleson claimed from John McCormick £5l 13s 9d for damages sustained by his car as a result of alleged negligent driving on the part of McCormick, while McCormick counter-claimed for £67 6s, alleging negligence on Therkleson’s part. Mr. F. K. Turnbull appeared for McCormick and Mr. H. Thomson for Therkleson>

It was agreed to hear the claim and counter-claim simultaneously. 'Outlining the case, Mr. Thomson said that on Christmas Eve Therkleson was proceeding from Inglewood to Tariki in a Ford car. When nearing the Piako bridge Therkleson saw a light approaching. When on the bridge the oncoming car turned sharply and crashed into the claimant’s car, causing the damage claimed. McCormick’s car was carrying only one light, and that was on the left hand side from the driver’s seat.

Charles Therkleson gave evidence on the above lines. The width of the bridge was 20 feet, and witness allowed 12 feet clear when crossing. He considered that, having only one fight, McCormick was confused on seeing the parapet of the bridge, and swerved on to the road, striking the front wheel of plaintiff’s car. Cross-examined, witness said he had been driving a car for six months. He had no experience of driving on a busy road at night. He considered that the drivei of McCormick’s car lost the wheel—or his head—after the collision, and, having too much speed on, capsized, striking the side of the bridge. Edgar Loveridge, J. Linklater and A. Cowley (passengers in Therkleson’s car) gave evidence in corroboration.

The defence was that the accident was caused by the negligence of Therkleson. McCormick was driving at about 20 miles an hour in a two-seater Studebaker car. He was well on to the bridge when he met Therkleson’s car. As far as defendant knew both his lights were on; he saw that they were on at Stratford. He had safely negotiated the approach to the bridge when he was certain the other car cr bed into him.

Defendant (J. McCormick) gave evidence as outlined by counsel. He had io knowledge of the road, but he was keeping strictly to the rules of the road. When Therkleson’s car was nearing the bridge it was on the correct side of the road, and everything looked all right. When quite close Therkleson’s car swerved sharplv into witness’ car. It was possible that there was only one light burning on witness’ car, although he had not noticed the absence of one.

The magistrate said he had made up his mind, and no good purpose- could be served by deferring decision. He held that there was only one light on McCormick’s car, and that the occupants of Therkleson’s car might reasonably anticipate that it was the light of a motorcycle. It seemed to His Worship that, having one light, the driver of McCormick's car saw the parapet of the bridge, and knew that the bridge must be to the right. He therefore appeared to have swerved to the right and thus struck Therkleson’s ear. The defendant must be held liable, but not to the extent of the claim. He would give judgment for plaintiff for £25. with court costs £2 10s and solicitors’ fees £3 2s and witnesses’ expenses £3 2s. The counter-claim was dismissed, no costs being allowed.