£2000 DAMAGES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 191, 15 August 1939, Page 10

£2000 DAMAGES.

HAWKER'S CLAIM.

SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT.

DISABILITY CHALLENGED.

"I'm only a labourer and not a lawyer," protected Sidney J. Adams, a hawker, in giving evidence before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury in the Supreme Court supporting" a claim of £2000 general damages and £20 snovial damages by his brother. Lewis Arthur Adams (Mr. Quartly) against Stanley Owen Clark, printer (Mr. North i in respect to injuries sustained when a hawkers eart in whk-h L. A. Adam? and S. J. Adams were driving: collided with a motor oar driven by defendant at the intersection of Drake Strr-rt and Victoria Street West on O.tolor 1. 1935. The hearing was resumed to-day. The witness, S. G. Adam*. 7n*uie his protect in cross-examination by Mr. Xorth. to support a statement that lie could not read plans to show the jury where and how he whs driving across the road when the cart was struck. He added that the cart hn.l cleared the tram rails when it was hit. having seen the car some distance away, and judged • he had ample ti up to cross. It wa, dusk at the tinin. but the visibility was <-]i:ar, and the defendant's car could easily have swerved past the cart. A Former Action. Further examined, the witness said he and his brother were engaged in selling wood and buying bottles on an equal profit-sharing basis, and had been doing so for some months at the time of the accident. Since then they had been separatelv hawking from barrows. His brother, the plaintiff, was 40 years old, unmarried and lived by himself. AYitne»s admitted thet he had himself brought a ea>e ngniii!*t defendant in the Magistrate's Court and had be»u non-~uited. He had soon three lawyers about it. On the plea that he w'a- a SK-k man at the th'ie of tlie onsp. witness said he could li'it remember what he said in the course of that cuso. and explained conflicts with his present evidence by saying he was confuted when he gave evidence in the former case. Witness said this ease was not his case, but was taken by his brother.

Plaintiff's Mentality. Dr. A. Kisdoll Moore save evidence 1 that plaintiff's mental state was 1 definitely sub-normal, but he could not !<-ay whether or not this wa<= due to the accident, as he ha<l not seen the man at that pei'iod. He agreed that a layman, who knew plaintiff both before and after the accident was competent to recognise any change for better or woree as to his mentality. I Richard Reed, who had known plaintiff since boyhood, gave it as his opinion that since his accident the plaintiff was i changed for the worse, and .seemed I strange. Dr. .Tanie<s Hardie Neil, while agreeing : that the man was below average mentality, thought hie mental state was "up to his trade as a hawker." Witness had submitted him to a scientific test of malingering in respect to his complaint of giddiness, and the result indicated that the complainant was not genuine. He thought the man quite capable of giving evidence in this case and of custaining a crose-examination. Dr. T. W. J. Johnson agreed that the man could have given evidence. Honesty of Claim. Proceeding with the defence, in addition to the medical evidence which had been taken separately, Mr. Xorth eaid his case was that the claim was not even an honest one. The defendant's car, it would be shown, was travelling at a reasonable speed and collided with an unlighted cart which was cutting the corner. It was alleged by the defence that the vlaim was made by a man who had suffered no disability from the accident. The case is proceeding.