HAWKER'S CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 210, 6 September 1939, Page 4

HAWKER'S CLAIM.

JURY FINDING ARGUED. CART AND CAR TN COLLISION. Tlie legal effect of the answers given by the jury in the case of Adams v. Clark, a claim for damages arising out of collision, was argued before Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court to-day, when Mr. Quartley, for plaintiff, and Mr North. for defendant respectively, moved for judgment. Lewis Arthur Adams, a hawker, claimed £2000 general damages and £26 special damages from Stanley Owen ( lark, printer, on the ground of mental degeneration arising out of injury sustained when defendant's motor car collided with plaintiff's horse and cart at the Victoria Street West and Drake Street intersection three years ago. Plaintiff was not called to yive evidence. but the chief witness for plaintiff was his brother, who was driving the horne and cart at, the time. The vehicle was not lit, the car had its headlights lit. and there was a question of whether the accident occurred ju*t before or just after sunset.

Tlie jury found that the defendant kept, a proper look-out and was not driving at an excessive speed, but that ho was negligent in failing to avoid the cart. They found that the driver of the cart was negligent in a manner contributing to tlie accident, and that the plaintiff was negligent in travelling in an unlighted vehicle nt the time. The jury also decided that defendant had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident, and assessed damages, if any, at £250 general damages and £26 special damages.

After having heard submissions by counsel his Honor said that, having regard to the evidence and the jury's answers to the issues, he was of opinion that the jury should have been more fully informed on the question of last opportunity. The answers were incomplete and ineffective and did not enable judgment to be entered for either party, obliging him to order a new trial. He accordingly ordered a new trial, to take place at next ensuing session of the Court. -Mr. North asked that the trial be re-i'.rii-ted to the question of liability, leaving the assessment of damages as fixed by the jury.

Mr. Quartley objected and his Honor said lie w.Mild take time to consider that aspect.

flie question of costs of the case and of the present motion was reserved. ■