WOMAN INJURED.

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

WOMAN INJURED.

DAMAGES CLAIM.

ACCIDENT IN QUEEN STREET.

MOTOR CYCLIST SUED. An accident in Queen Street in November last was alleged by Ethel Maud Wood at the Supreme Court tins morning to be due to tlie negligence of a motor cyclist, William Reid, a baker. Mrs. Wood claimed £400 general damages and £100 special damages. Mr. Hampson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Munro for Reid. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury. Counsel explained that the olaintiff was 01 years of age. When she stepped off the kerb there was a stationary motor car on either side of her. After plaintiff cleared the cars she made a momentary pause to see if the road was clear and then went on. When she reached the first tram line ehe v.ms struck by the motor cycle. Counsel said that evidence would be called to show that after the accident the defendant stated that lie did not see the plaintiff and that "if he had done what he ought to have done he would have been in bed." Another witness who overheard the remark would say that it was "if T had done as I usually do I would be in bed." In consequence of the injury the plaintiff sustained concussion followed by a permanent stiffness of the fingers of the right hand. The plaintiff in evidence testified to the weakness of her hand and to giddy attacks to which she was subject. Further evidence was given by people who saw the plaintiff after she had been struck and by Frederick William Wood, son of the plaintiff. The latter stated that he was with his mother at the hospital after the accident when defendant came to see her. Defendant said that he was eorry he ctfd not eee plaintiff. •■>. . Just before the Court adjourned for lunch at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, Mr. Munro stated that he intended to move for a nonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence. No one, he submitted, had been called who had witnessed the accident or the events leading up to it. (Proceeding.)