MOTOR CAR COLLISION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10619, 26 April 1912, Page 6

MOTOR CAR COLLISION.

A SEQUEL IN COURT. DAMAGES AWARDED. In ilk Magistrate's Court at Masterton, .before Mr L. 0. Heid, S.M., a ease was heard in which the Hole, Holland, Company, Ltd., claimed from •James Bourko the sum of £57 16s, f#r damages alleged to have been caused in a collision between plaintiff's motor car and the defendant's horso on tho Carterton road. Defendant counter claimed the sum of £BO for damages to his horse and general damages. Mr D. K. Logan appeared for the plain till and Mr M. Laverv for utfendent. Arthur William Petherick, managing director of the company of Hole, Holland. Ltd., said the day r.ffcer the Cartel'tor. sho.v ha was engaged by two gentlemen to take them from Mastcrton is Carterton in his taxicab. They left Masierton about 7.10 o'clock in the evening, and had got as far as the "81-aegums" when he stv.v Uirpc horsemen approaching. He was travelling at about twelve miles an hour, and puiied off to his prop'er side of the road. The horsemen were also on their proper side. When lie got abreast of the horsemen, the one furthest away from the car galloped in front cf the others and made straight for the taxi. Witness took the car still further to tho side, but the horso crashed inti, tho car and fell underneath. When the car finally pulled up, he was within four feet of the fenco on his proper sido.of the road. When tho horse was released from under the car it galloped away down the road. When he picked defendant up the ' latter was asleep, and witness considered that he was drowsy from the effects of liquor. When defendant woko up he asked what had happened, and one of his companions told him that ho had deliberately galloped across the roan. Defendant said, "I must have been , mad." The headlamps of the ear were smashed, tho radiator was destroyed, the., axle was bent, and the engine thrown back. The car was laid up i for a fortnight as a. result of the accident. Tho-car earned on an average from £lB to £25 a week. Allowing for expenses, the car made a profit oi about £2 per day. On the Monday following the accident lie went to see Bourko, and took McKenzie with him. McKenzie told Bourk-e what had happened, and the latter again snid that "he must have boon mad.'' Later on in tho conversation defend-ant-said :• "Put the car in tho garage, and I'll fix it up when 1 get out." Tho Company's agent, Mr Keith, had written to Bourke on three occasions, but had' received no replies to his letters, and a sumn'ons was then issued. Before tho summons was issued, Mr Layery, on behalf of Mr Bourke, had made an offer of £U)in settlement of tho damages.

To Mr Lavc> 17 : Tlio light was fairly ■dark, but not- so dark that he eotiJd not »sco the horsemen. Bourke's hors? sliot across the road suddenly. Witness had two sido lights, but no headlight 011 the car. When lie saw Bourke on the Monday witness did not tell him that he was responsible for the accident, but asked him what ho was going to do about the matter. He did not consider thai he was a reckless driver.

Alexander McKchzie; a drover, wi-.o j was earning from Carterton with Boitrko and McCullough at tho time of the accident, said lie had 110 saddle or bridle on his horse, only a halter. He saw the lights of the -car about twenty chains away. When the car was close up Bonrke crossed in front of the other two horsemen, He- was the nearest of the throe riders, and Bourko was on the outside. The car moved right off the road on to the side. Bourko collided with the car and was thrownr behind it. The car was travelling somewhat slowly. The driver of tho car did a-H he could to j avoid a collision. Witness said he saw Bourke's Ikwso in a paddock about February 22nd. To Mr Lavery: Bourke was quite capable of managing his horse. Defendant and witness .had a few drinks together. To the Magistrate : When the car was approaching, Bourke said: "Hero comes a car. I'll stop it.'' Charles McC-ulloghj the other horseman who was with Bourke, said when,,he saw tho car approaching he went to catch hold of Mclvenzie s

horso as it only had a. halter on. Then Bourko crossed the road in the direction of the .approaching car. To Mr La very: Ho heard no horn, when tho ear was approaching. Both Bourke and McKenzie had had a fair amount of drink that night. lie-examined by Mr Logan, witness said tho accident would not have hap. penucd if Bourke had stayed where he was. Thos. P.' Kemble, a passenger iu Petlierick's taxi-cab, said after the accident the car was on the proper sido of (lie road. The car was not travelling very quickly. To Mr Laverv : He bad travelled to Carterton from Mastcrton with Mr Petherick before and the trip usually took about twenty-two minutes. Hugh C. MeP'hee, anotlxjr of the passengers iu the taxi-cab, said after the collision the car was well off tlw road on its proper side. Mr Laverv, at this juncture, made •a statement that as he had put in the counter-claim after very little notice, he did not know all the particulars, and he now proposed to withdraw tho counter-claim altogether. James Bourke, defendant, said on the day of tho accident he and Mr McKenzie had about tour drinks at Carterton. When the car was met lie wa.'i situated on the outside of the three horsemen. Bit the car came on tlieiu suddenly r nd frightened the horses. McKenzie'* swerved, and before witness could control his own horse, it had crossed the road and got in front of the car. He knew nothing of the accident after the car struck the horse. To Mr Logan: He would not say he was quite sober, but he was capable l of managing his horse. Ho could not control his horse at the. time o"f the collision because it was frightened. He did not- remember saying tlmt 'lie must have been mad" at the time of the accident. He would not swear that lie did not promise to pay for the damage, but lie did not remember doing so. . After Counsel had addressed the Court, His Worship said the accident was caused entirely by defendant s negligence, a'id tho only question t.v bo settled was the amount of damage to assess. He thought if £lO was allowed for the loss of profits during Hie time the car was laid up for tepairs, that was as much as he could allow. He therefore gave judgment for £39 6s, with costs £6 6s.