SEQUEL TO A STREET ACCIDENT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9651, 16 November 1909, Page 6

SEQUEL TO A STREET ACCIDENT.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, befois Mr R. 11. Turton, S.M., a claim for £IOO damages was made by Clarenca utcher against James Boyne McKenzie., Mr P. L. Hollings appeared for plaintiff, and Mr C. A. Pownall for defendant. Mr Hollings stated that on October €th defendant was driving along the street at Kuripuni on the wrong side of the road, and knoclcc ! his client's child down, and ran over the boy's leg. The child was playing marbles in the street with a number of other children tsome six feet from the footpath, and was knocked down by the horse, after which the right hand wheel of the buggy passed over his leg near the ankle. Instead of getting out of the buggy to see what had happened, defendant drove on. Dr Cook stated that he attended the child in question on October 6th. He found an injury just above tho ankle, which appeared at the time to oe a green stick fracture. Witness was of the opinion that the injury to the leg had been caused "by the wheel of a vehicle. Thomas Henry Sutton said he] was standing on his verandah in Chapel Street, on the day in question, and heard a child screaming. He saw a

man in a buggy pulling up, but before he got there the man drove off in the direction of Masterton. When witness arrived at the scene of the accident he saw some blood marks on the road about seven feet from the footpath. Witness then went away, but, seeing the driver of the buggy returning, went back again. The children were playing marbles some four or five feet from the kerbing, and could easily be seen by the driver of the buggy. Kobert Milne douosed to having seen the boy going towards the footpath on the day in question. Witness turned to speak to a friend, and on turning round again saw ■ McKenzie pulling up and the boy lying on the road. He went across and picked the boy up and took him inside. McKenzie said, 'The boy's leg is broken," but did not get out of ths buggy, and drove away just after. Desmond Welch, attending St. Patrick's School, who saw the accident, also give evidence. Philip Henry Shaw was playing marbles in the road by the triangle on the day in Question, and saw defendant driving along Queen Street. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Frederick Butcher, 10-year-old brother of the injured boy, was playing about a chain away on October 6th. There was nothing to prevent defendant driving in the middle of the road. Frederick Butcher, father of the child, said that after defendant had been summoned, he came to witness and offered him £3 to square the account. If McKenzie had been in the middle of the road it would not have happened. Witness had been put to considerable expense in the matter. Dr Cowie, fn* the defence, said he did not think there would be any permanent injury. James Boyne McKenzie, farmer, defendant in the case, said be was coming home from the South Road, and in order to get to his home would have to turn down Crayne Street to the right.' He was not driving fast. At the triangle at Kuripuni several groups of children were playing on the road, among them being a group of girls near the centre and the two small boys near the side. There was plenty of room bet" een the two groups. Witness slowed down to turn the corner, and when the horse got nearly opposite the boys, who appeared to be scuffling over something, and were some five feet from the footpath, one of them put his hand up to his face and ran away from the other one. Before witness could do anything the child bumped against the box of the wheel, which twisted him round so that he fell near the hind wheel. Witness at once pulled up within about two yards, and did not think the wheel went over the boy's leg. It was probable that the boy'might have put his foot though the spokes of the wheel. Milne

picked the boy up and tried to stand him on his feet, when witness said that the boy's leg appeared to be broken, and told him to carry him. Witness, thinking to pet a doctor, drove round ti Dixon Street, where he hoped to find a telephone. Discovering none, he came back with the intention of offering to drive away for a doctor. Butcher came out, and"said that the boy's leg was evidently broken. Meantime another man came along, and offered to go for a doctor, and went. Witness sent his girl into the shop next day to enquire after the bov. He h»d seen the boy in the street again about a fortnight ag", and he appeared to he a little lame. Children were continually playing in the street at that spot. Witness saw claimant a little over a week ago, and told him that if he had come to him instead of going to a lawyer, defendant would in all probability have made him an offer. He did not make an offer of £3. Alexander Marshal Sneddon, drover, ■ saw defendant come back after the accident, Defendant told him that he had run over a bov, and said he was going for a doctor, when witness asked if he should go. Witness returned with the doctor, and saw the marks of the blood on the ! road. He would judge the distance j to be 10 feet from the footpath. James Colway, farmer, said he had known defendant 30 years, and considered him to be a careful driver. He did not consider that defendant ought to have kept out into the centre of the road, as he naturally had to draw in to turn the corner. Mr Hollings contended that defendant, seeing that he was on the wrong side of the road, and noticing he children there, it was his duty to turn on to the right side of the road. Defendant should have exercised care and not expect the children to get out of the road. He submitted there was negligence in law in being on the wrong side, not clearing the children, and being too near the footpath. Mr Pownall held there was no wrong side of the road, and a man had to use the highway as he found it. According to the witness Sneddon defendant was 10 feet from the footpath. It was a common playing ground for children, and he would like to point out that if parents did not want their children to get hurt they should not let them play there. His Worship 9tated that there were no.aetuai witnesses uf the accident, at all, except the little boy Lett, who was apparently sure that the boy plaintiff ran out with his hand over hie eyes. One witness said that if the boy had kept on nothing would have happened. It was difficult to gather how the accident happened. From the distance given it would seem that although defendant was on the wrong side of the road he had as a proper and competent driver any amount of room to pass the two groups of children. The fact of his

being on the wrong side ot the road did not necessarily mean that the verdict should be given against him, and from the evidence his Worship was of opinion that it was a pure accident. He thought that according to the distance given defendant could see clearly that no vehicles were approaching and that although the children were playing, in the street he was justified in turning as he did. Judgment would be given for defendant, with costs £2 12s.