LABOURERS AT LAW

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 268, 12 November 1935, Page 8

LABOURERS AT LAW

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

PANMURE COLLISION.

PLAINTIFF AWARDED £447.

The action which was commenced yesterday before Mr. Justice Callan and a jury in the Supreme Court in which William John Dunlop (Mr. Singer) claimed from Herman Francis Bowketfc (Mr. Goldstine) £579 damages for injuries received, and loss of wagee following upon an accident on the EllerslioPanmuro Road on March 10 last, is oeing continued to-day. The parties arc labourers and Dunlop was riding a motor cycle and Bowkett driving a motor car when they came into collision. Giving evidence yesterday afternoon James McXally, taxi driver, said he was driving his car on the PanmurcEllerslie highway when he saw the motor cycle coming towards him. The motor cycle carried a light, not too bright, but a light." The cycle, was on the correct side of the road and just after the cycle passed him witness heard a crash which appeared to be immediately behind witness' car. Witness pulled up, saw that there had been a collision between plaintiff's cycle and defendant's car. He took plaintiff to the hospital. Bowkett's car, after the collision, was on the wrong side of the road. On August 11, five months after the accident, lie was interviewed by the police and made a statement which was the same as he made in Court and which was the tiuth. Henry Turner Mcßae said ho lived opposite the spot, where the accident happened. He heard the crash and immediately went outside. There were two cars on the road, both facing towards Auckland, one car being on each side of the road. To the best of his knowledge the motor cycle, as he saw it outside the Court, was in the same condition as when he moved it to the side of the road after the accident. Defendant's Evidence. Defendant, Herman Francis Bowkett, said he had been driving motor cars for years. Just prior to the accident he was driving towards Auckland, and as he reached the bend near Burt's Road the car just in front of him began to pull up. It pulled to the left edge of the concrete and witness swerved his car to go paet. As he did so a motor cycle loomed up in front of him. Miss Bryers, who was in the car with him, had sounded the horn, which was on the daehboard, but when the motor cycle loomed up it was only a couple of feet away from him and too late to avoid an accident. After the collision witness could have stopped in the centre of the road, but not wishing to cause a traffic jam, ho pulled to the right eide of the road. The lamp of the motor cycle, with the rim and glass broken off, was picked up on the road. The lamp was stone cold. These were placed in witness' car and> later handed to the police at the police station. Plaintiff was placed in McNally's gar, the occupants of which appeared to h'ave been drinking. Beer in Car. There were bottles of beer in the back of. the car. Dunlop wanted a drink, but witness would not let him have any. On the way to the hospital witness mentioned that he did not see Dunlop on the motor cycle because it had no light. McNally, the driver of the taxi, said he did not see the cycliet either for the same reason. McNally also asked, if a case arose out of the accident, to leave him out of it, and added that he did not think there would be a case as the motor cyclist was in the wrong. After Dunlop had been taken to the hospital witness went to the police and reported the accident. Statement Made to Police. After Dunlop was discharged from hospital, said witness, he called upon witness and said he would make it worth while if witness would change the statement made to the police, in which witness stated that he had no license or lights. Dunlop suggested that if witness changed the. statement to say that he did not know whether he (Dunlop) had lights it would be all right. If he got £200 from the insurance company he would give witness £50. Dunlop said the more he got the more witness would get. Witness said he did not want to get six months. Dunlop had never asked him the name of the insurance company. Witness had seen the motor cycle outside the Court, and the generator on it was not the same generator that was on it at the time of the accident. He had never had an accident of any kind. In answer to Mr. Singer, the witness admitted that he had run over a boy in Newmarket, but the boy wasn't seriously hurt. Witness had taken the boy to the hospital, and later to his home, but he had not given the matter any further thought. Witness did not regard it as an accident. Except that it was in 1934, he could not remember when the accident happened. To further questions, witness said he knew all the time the insurance company which held the cover over his car. He did not tell Dunlop, nor did he report the accident to the insurance company till some months afterwards, the day following Dunlop calling upon him. He admitted Dunlop told him the registration receipt would give the name of the insurance compar/. At 5 p.m. the hearing was adjourned till this morning. Alleged Conspiracy. Further cross-examined by Mr. Singer this morning, defendant said he did not tell the insurance company, when he first called at its office, about the suggested conspiracy. He could not say how long it was after Dunlop mentioned it to him that he mentioned it to anybody, but it was some weeks 'afterwards. He did not mention it to the police either. He denied that he told McNally he had the number of the latter's car; as a matter of fact he did not know the number. Mr. Singer: You registered your car in the name of Downs I —Yes. Who is Doivns?—Myself. There is really no Downs?— No. What address did you of myself, 27, Ellerslie Avenue. Joyce Byers, a passenger in Bowkett's car at the time of the accident, said when Bowkett's car swung out from behind the stationary car in front she sounded the horn. After the accident she said to Dunlop, "You didn't have any lights on your cycle; I didn't see any." Dunlop replied, "Yes, I know I didn't." In the car in which Dunlop was taken to the hospital were some bottles of beer. On the way to the hospital Bowkett, in speaking of the accident, said he did not see any lights or anything coming towards him. The taxi-driver said, "No, I did not see anything either." Dunlop asked Bowkett not to mention the accident to the police, as he (Dunlop) did not have any lights or license. Witness and Bowkett visited the hospital to see Dunlop on

more than one occasion. On the first visit Bowkett said to Dunlop, "You must havo been travelling at a good speed," and Dunlop replied, "Yes, I know I was, but I thought I could squeeze through. I did not want to get off the edge of the concrete on to the loose metal. ,. After Dunlop's discharge from hospital he called upon witness and said he hoped Bowkett had not said anything to the police about there being no lights on the cycle. When told that -bfcth witness and Bowkett had made statements to the police Dunlop said, "Well, that's not so good." Dunlop said he was not going for Bowkett to get money, as lie knew BowKett liad none, uut lie was going for money from the insurance company. Dunlop said that if Bowkett would not change his statement to the police about there being no light on the cycle, he (Dunlop) would have to plead loss of memory. Motor Cycle At Police Station. Constable Davies, of the Ellerslie station, said there was no rim or glass attached to the lamp of the motor cycle when it was brought to the police station. He had examined the lamp next day and would not believe it had been lighted on the previous evening. In answer to Mr. Singer witness said he was not present when the motor cycle was taken away , some weeks later. Verdict for Plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict in favour of plaintiff for £330 general damages and £1170 0/ -special damages, making a total of £447 0/.