£2000 CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 190, 14 August 1939, Page 8

£2000 CLAIM.

SUIT BY HAWKER.

SEQUEL TO COLLISION

HORSE VAN AND MOTOR CAR.

Cite time of (ho accident, as well as other emit filiating factors, wan in disI'Ute in a claim by a hawker. Lewis Arthur Adams (Mr. Quartly) before Mr. .Itislice Fair and a jury in the Supremo Court to-day aprains't Stanley Owen Clarke, priiiter n.Messrs. North and \\ a I lace) tnr £2(MMt (general and iiiii H|iciia| (lamajros in <-onso<|ucnce of injuries sustained in a collision on October I. 1

According to Mr. Quartly's outline of his evidence, the collision occurred liet ween a horsc-driven hawker's \an. in which the plaintiff was being driven by his brother, and a motor ear driven by defendant. I lie hawker's van had come down College Hill and was about to bo turned to the right into the street leading to Drake St root, while the defendant s car was being driven along \ ictoi ia street West towards I'onsonby, and the collision took place at the intersection whore the exits from Drake Street, t"nion Street and Franklin Road ga\e on to Victoria Street. Factors In Dispute. Plaintiff's brother would say that the time was ti.lo p.m. summer time, and that the ear's speed was excessive, that the defendant failed to give way to the vnn, awl that tho slightest swerve by defendant would have avoided the accident, indicating that lie was not keeping a proper look-out. Plaintiff himself, said counsel, was so severely injured that ho was unconscious for several days, and eventually was left in n state of mind so much pub-normal that lie could give no account of the accident. There would, however, be the brother's evidence, that of an eyewitness. and of a |*>destrian who came on the scene immediately after the collision.

Counsel added that the defendant alleged Hint the time whs 7 p.m. and that the van should have been carrying a light. and also that it was cutting the corner. The plaintiff did not admit that the time was as defendant stated, or that a light was needed at the time to enable the defendant to see the van. The defendant further alleged that plaintiff and his brother wero operating the van as partners in a hawking business, and that the negligent actions of his brother as driver of the van stopped plaintiff from recovery of damages against defendant. This, said. Mr. Quartlv, did not apply if it could be shown thnt defendant could have avoided the accident by the use of ordinary caVe.

On the subject of the claim of £2000 damages. Mr. Quartly said the sum claimed was very high, but he contended it "was by no means too much. The medical evidence would show that the plaintiff was unconscious for several days, recovered for a brief period and then became violently delirious, having to he confined to a cell. Eventually he recovered, but was in a sub-normal, dull state of mind. Evidence would be brought to show that this sub-normality of mind was not plaintiff's state of mind before the accident, that he had been of average mentality, but was not so now. Eye-witness' Evidence. Charles F. Bennett, a carpenter, said he was an eye-witness of the accident, which occurred as tile horse in the cart was walking across Victoria Street towards the Drako Street entrance, a-nd had 'practically arrived at Drake Street. He saw the cart lit up 'by the headlight of a motor car, and heard no horn sounded and no grinding of brakes. The cart crossed Victoria Street diagonally. To Mr. Xorth the witness said there had 'been a light rain shortly l>efore the accident. The ti'me was about 7 p.m. There was no other traffic ail>out at Hip time'. His impression was that the car's speed was about 30 miles per hour, and that the motor car's lights were particularly brilliant. In a statement to the police he had said the men in the cart did not make any atteiwpt to make the horse go faster to avoid the oncoming car. Hp thpn made the time 6.50 p.m.

Frederick James Croft said he \v«d on the scene of Hie accident a minute after the ora«h and saw two men lying unconscious on the street newr the spot fixed iby the previous witness a« the |>oint of impart. The time when he ran out was 0.15 p.m., and it was not dark. The case is 'proceeding.