VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22496, 2 September 1938, Page 19

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

SUPREME COURT HEARING AT GREYMOUTH

[IHE PRESS Special Service.] GREYMOUTH, September 1. A verdict for plaintiff, Frank Reginald Aldridge, a sawmill employee of Kumara, in his claim against James Woods, of Christchurch, and formerly of Waiuta, boot importer, for damages arising out of a collision between plaintiff’s motor-cycle and a motor-car driven by Woods was given by a jury in the Supreme Court' at Greymouth to-day. Aldridge, who claimed £974 13s special and general damages, was awarded £934 13s. His Honour, Mr Justice Northcroft, presided.

Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr C. S. Thomas (Christchurch) for defendant. An application by Mr Hannan for judgment was adjourned until to-morrow morning tor argument. The collision, said Mr Hannan, had taken place on the night of March 7, 1936, on the Grey-Hokitika road, at a small one-way bridge. Plaintiff had been travelling from Harihari towards Greymouth, and defendant had been travelling in the opposite direction. Soon after he had crossed the New River bridge, plaintiff had noticed the lights of an approaching car. Plaintiff thought he had the right-of-way on the bridge, but the car had travelled anead, and at the Greymouth end of the bridge a collision had taken place. Plaintiff had been severely injured and had been in hospital, off and on, for two years. He had undergone three operations md had had a bone from one leg grafted to the other. Evidence was given by plaintiff along the lines of counsel’s opening. In cross-examination by Mr Thomas plaintiff agreed that the only ones at the scene at the time of the collision were himself, the defendant, and the passenger in defendant’s car. Mr Thomas: You want only justice? —Yes.

You know the absolute necessity of telling the truth?— Yes.

So it is untrue that you accelerated when approaching the bridge?— Yes. Would that have been a careless, stupid thing to do?— Yes.

Would it be true to say the car was actually on the bridge when you came to it?— No.

If the car were there first, you would have been to blame for the accident? —Yes.

Do you agree that you have no claim at all if you accelerated? —Yes. At this point, Mr Thomas called on Police Inspector H. Scott to produce a statement made to a constable two days after the collision. The inspector made no objection, and produced the statement, which the plaintiff admitted was his, and in which he said, among other things, “1 thought I would have time to get across the bridge before the car. I accelerated to do so,” and "When I reached the bridge the car was on it.”

To Mr Thomas plaintiff said he was in extreme pain _ when the statement was made, and bis faculties were then not so clear as to-day. What he had told the police was told in good faith. He could not say why the statement of claim now charged the defendant with having been on the wrong side and with excessive speed, whereas in the evidence, he, the plaintiff, had denied that defendant was on the wrong side, and had said defendant’s speed was i.ot excessive, nor could he explain why he had not blamed defendant in the statement to the police, but the evidence he was giving before the Court was correct.

Dr. Henry Barrett, superintendent of the Grey Public Hospital, in _ evidence, said that Aldridge, when interviewed in hospital by a constable two days after the collision, would not be affected to any appreciable extent in making a statement. Evidence for plaintiff was given by Thomas McAlister and his son. Thomas, of Kumgja.-. v ‘ The defence, said Mr Thomas, denied any negligence, and alleged that the collision was caused by the plaintiff. Aldridge said to him, “I am sorry I have damaged your car,” said defendant in evidence. Approaching the bridge, plaintiff had increased his speed, and tried to cross while witness had the right of way. Evidence corroborating that of defendant was given by William Kinley, of Waiuta, a coal miner, passenger in Woods’s car. • The jury, after a short retirement, returned the verdict mentioned.