£276 DAMAGES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 193, 17 August 1939, Page 18

£276 DAMAGES.

HAWKER'S CLAIM.

COLLISION WITH MOTOR.

In the third day's hearing of the claim by Lewis Arthur Adams, hawker (Mr. Quartlev), of £2000 general damages and £26 special damages against Stanley Owen Clark, printer (Mr. North), in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Fair and jury yesterday, the morning was occupied with addresses by counsel and his Honor.

Plaintiff claimed to have suffered permanent mental disability as the result of a collision at Drake Street and Victoria Street West intersection between his hawker's cart and defendant's motor car on October 1, 1935. He alleged that the collision was due to the negligence of defendant.

Defendant in his evidence stated that as dark was coming on and rain was falling he was driving along Victoria Street West when he suddenly saw the cart crossing the street about 30ft. away. The cart, as admitted by plaintiff, carried no light. Witness braked his car and swerved, but failed to clear the cart.

This account was corroborated by Lionel \V. McGregor, a passenger in defendant's car at the time.

The period of time which had been allowed to elapse before this case came on, the history of other cases by plaintiff and his brother in connection with the accident, and the non-apj>earance of the plaintiff to support liis claim, were commented on by Mr. North in his address as features which had to be considered by the jury with great care. Counsel contended that the * evidence showed that all the negligence contributing to the accident was on the part of the cart driver and in equal degree on the part of the plaintiff, who was in the cart as a partner.

Mr. Quartley stressed the fact that his witnesses, with one exception, were unknown to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's brother had to do his best within limited means to secure justice for a disabled brother, as answering Mr. North's suggestion that the claim was not an honest claim.

In answer to the issues put to them the jury found that the defendant had been negligent in failing to avoid the cart, but not in other respects, that the driver of the cart had been guilty of negligence contributing to the accident, and that the plaintiff had been negligent in travelling in an unlighted vehicle. The damages, if any, were assessed at £250 general and £26 special.

Mr. Quartley and Mr. Wallace (defendant) both moved for judgment, and his Honor reserved the motions, allowing Mr. Wallace 14 days in which to move for a new trial.