A COLLISION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXIII, Issue 8850, 29 May 1914, Page 5

A COLLISION.

£10 DAMAGES AWAHDED

At the Magistrate's Court thin morning George Wonnaeotc (l\lr Orbell) proceeded against V»*. ,}. S. McDowell (Mr Buchanan), claiming £15 as a result 01, a collision between. plaintiff's bicycle and- defendant's- motor-car. Albert Bail stated that he Was out cycling with Wounacott, on the day the collision tcok place between defendant's motor-car :md plaintiff's bicycle. Witness and' Wonnacott were" '■ on their right side, and tlio car jammed them against the kerb. /Witness jumped off his machine, but Wonnacott kept on, thinking "the car was going to turn,' and the car and Wonnacott's bicycle collided. Tlie car was travelling at about seven or eight miles au hour. The car knocked Wonnacott over and ran over the bicycle. Wonnacott was dragged about seven,«yards by the car, having prevented himself from getting under the car by hiv hands. .Wonnacott had, witness ' bolievod. .at the time of the accident, stated something about it having boon his fault, hut Wonnacott was then dazed and did not know what he was Haying. Theaccident was not Wonnacott's ir-vAt Ii the car had been on its right Sido there would have been plenty of room The driver of the car blew the horn ' three ,or four times.'

Stanley Wilson, a farmer at Fairueld, stated that he saw the accident The collision occurred about six feet trom tho kerbing. Tf tho car had been on its right side tho accident co'id not have occurred where it did. Tho car went a considerable «li.stanco aj'for tho collision. - Witness i bought t!'c driver had lost his hrad. The car v.r.s only travelling slowly, and witnoss vmidered why it was not pulled up moi<; quickly. James Smith, a builder, aho gave evidence. He attributed th'- accident to the car being on its wronjv side of the road. He was perfectly certainthat the car was on its wro"g ,;idc and tho bicycle on ir:> right vJ.o. George Wonnacott said ho, V.-.-d been riding a bicycle off and on fw J.-ho past' five years. Tie was on his right side of tho road whm the' {veidc:;fr happened, and had had no chanc« of getting by the car. His bicycle bad cost £16, and wa? damaged bcyoiui n-nair. Witness had not known what he wa<« saying just after the accident. He had then said that the accident was his fault, but ho afterwards saw that it was not his fault. Witness had turned towards his, wrong side with the object ot avoiding tho car. Henry Oorgc Flatman. an expert' mechanic, utated that tho frcyclo damaged had cost about £18. The machine had been smashed almost beyond repair. It would cost about £8 or £10 to repair. i William J. S. McDowell (the defendant) stated that he • had seven passengers in his car at the time of the accident. - Ho was half-way across the street from the kerb when the collision took place. Witness had turned aside •to giv,e plaintiff more room. ' The bump on the car ' caused his ' foot to slip, from tlie clutch, and, so he-had not'been able to pull the car up as quickly as otherwise he might ha.ye done. Plaintiff had said that he was i unused to bicycles, and that the acciI dent, was his fault. Had plaintiff kept straight on there would have been no accident. Witness had -been -iv«H^oxttu__ in the middle of the-road a/t the time of the accident. He was certain that he had not dragged the bicycle 21 feet. John McDowell, Herbert McDowell, and Archibald McDowell all gave corrobative evidence, attributing the collision to the cyclist's action. His Worship' gave a verdict for £10, with 18s Court costs, £1 6s solicitor's fee, and 34s .witnesses' expenses.