MOTOR CYCLES COLLIDE.

Clutha Leader, Volume XLII, Issue 89, 16 May 1916, Page 2

MOTOR CYCLES COLLIDE.

SEQUEL IN COURT. JUDGMENT FOE PLAINTIFF. At tiie monthly sitting of the Kaitangata Magistrate's Court on Thursday, before Mr H. A. Young, S.M., William F. 'Crowe ('Mr Stewart) claimed from David 'Bennie (Mr Finch) the sum of £lO for damages sustained by reason of defendant, on September 'SO last, so negligently riding his motor bicycle that lie collided with plaintiff's motor cycle. Before taking the evidence the magistrate visited the scene of the collision. On resuming, Mr Stewart said the collision happened last September, and the reason why action had nofbeen taken before was that Bennie had offered to pay £2 for the damage to the motor, but so far had done nothing. William K. Gibson CBalclutha), garage proprietor, said he was an expert mechanic of 12 years' experience. He had seen plaintiff's motor cycle. The forks were weakened and new ones were required, and £,l was a reasonable sum to claim for the damaged forks; 10s was a fair price for the footboards, 6s for repairing the tube and tyre, ami £3 for depreciation in the value of the machine.

Cross-examined: He saw the machine often before the accident. He could not say what eoudition the machine would be in at the time of the accident. William F. Crowe said he was returning from Wangaloa on his motor bicycle. He was rounding a turn in the road when he saw defendant coming towards him, and before he knew whore he was they collided, and witness was thrown on the road. When witness picked himself up he told defendant he was on his wrong side. Defendant replied that witness had swerved. Plaintiff called defendant's attention to the tracks of the motor. Some time after witness asked defendant to pay the damage done to the machine. Defendant replied that he had not got the money to pay. The front rim of the motor was smashed, the forks and footboard were broken and the tyre and tube were both damaged. Witness was off work two days as a. result of the accident, and lost 24s wages. The value of the bicycle had deteriorated.

I 'Cross-examined: Witness was not an expert rider. Tie was coming up a hill at the time of the collision at a slow pace. Defendant denied being a fast rider. Defendant had a boy on behind his machine. There was not room to pass defendant. He had had theh cycle about J2 months. He had had one or two minor accidents before with the machine. If defendant had been in the middle of the road the accident would never have happened. To the magistrate: He did not sound the horn coining round the corner. 'Edward Crowe (plaintiff's son) said he came in from Wangaloa on the day ' of the accident in a buggy, his father being ahead on the motor bicycle, fie arrived on the scene shortly after the accident. He heard his father accuse defendant of being on the wrong side of the road. Defendant did not answer. Witness corroborated his father's evidence as to the damage done to the machine, and also to the marks on the road.

Thomas Purvis gave evidence as to seeing marks of a motor on the road at the scene of the accident.

John Coulter (cycle agent) said lie repaired the damaged machine. The forks would not be as strong as formerly. The prices claimed for damage done were reasonable.

For the defence David Bennie (defendant) said that on the day of the accident he was on his way to Wangaloa on his motor cycle, lie had Ins cousin on behind. Before coming to the corner he sounded the horn. As he rounded the corner he met plaintiff, who was travelling fast. Witness was crossing from the left to the right side of the road at the time of the collision. He was not thrown off his bicycle. He had told plaintiff that he would pay £2 for the damage to the machine.

Cross-examined: He did not have the money to pay. He was 2(i years of age and single, but could not afford to pay at the time. He could have paid the £2 since. The reason he offered to pay was to assist plaintiff, not because he was responsible for the accident. He was travelling quietly at the time of the accident. ! He crossed from the left to the right side to take a wide turn. If witness had crossed to his proper side earlier no accident would have happened. He had had no warning of anyone coming. Plaintiff swerved into witness.

To the magistrate: He first saw plaintiff about three yards away. Plaintiff was on the left-hand side.

Boyd D. Bennie said he was on the back of the defendant's machine on the day of the collision. At the bend the machine was going slowly, when plaintiff ran into them. Plaintiff's front wheel struck their machine at the footrest. Cross-examined: He did not see plaintiff come round the corner. He first saw liim lying on the road. Defendant's bicycle could have gone round the corner without going to the wrong side. The magistrate said that plaintiff was ou the left side of the road, and defendant was on the same side. It was clear that if defendant had kept a lookout he could have seen plaintiff coming. He was not using ordinary care, and was liable for the damage. Judgment was given for £6 10s, court costs 16s, wit*' nesses' expenses £2 Os 9d, solicitor's fee £1 6s.