MOTOR-CAR COLLISION

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 263, 26 July 1918, Page 9

MOTOR-CAR COLLISION

CASE ON APPEAL. ' His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking in the Supreme Court yesterday heard the case of-the Wellington Publishing Company, Ltd., v. C. P. Vallancc, Featherston, tanner. Mr. T. Keavo appeared for the appellant and -Mr. A. W. Blair for the respondent Valhrioe This was an appeal on point of laiv and matter of fact from the decision of the Magistrate's Court at Peathcrstor. in an action wherein tlio appellant or plaintiff claimed relief set out in the following statement of claim:— (1) That on December 11, 1917, at. Featherston, the defendant (Vallance) so negligently and unskilfully managed anci drote i a motor-car on the Wellington Koad that the same collided with and damaged a motor-van belonging to the plaintiff and used for the-delivery ot 'L'liii Dominion* newspaper. (2) That the plaintiff's motor-van, by reason, of such collision, sustained such damage that tho plaintiff lost the use thereof from December 17, 1017, uuiii December 22, 1917, and the plaintiff has been put to expense for repairs and for hire of another motor-van, and tho said motor-van is diminished in value. The plaintiff claimed .1:50 damages. The defendant counter-claimed for relief in tho following statemeit of claim:— (1) That on or about December 17, 1917, at or near Featherston, the plaintiff's servant in the course of his employment with (ho plaintiff, and in the ordinary, course of his service, so negligently and unskilfully managed .and drove a ■motor-vim'belonging to the plaintiff aa to cause the tame to collide and damage a motor-ear tin property of and driven by the defendant. (2) That by reason of such collision the defendant's car was so damaged that: (n) It has r.ot yet been fully .repaired; (b) tho defendant has lost and is still without thr use of his car, and (3) The taid ear has depreciated in value and tile defendant claimed to recover from , the plaintiff .0150 .by way of damages. . , Judgment, was given by the Magistrate for the defendant on Ihe claim anjl coun-ter-claim, and against this decision the plaintiff appealed. The grounds of the appeal were (hat. there was- no evidence to support the judgment and that the appellant was entitled to judgment on both tho claim and counter-claim upon the evidence adduced; that the d'.k'iidant wan guilty of negligence in failing to keep to his ,proper side of the road; and that the defendant had the Inst opportunity of avoiding the accident. Mr. Ncave argued at great length ant. reviewed the evidence very closely, taking nearly (lie whole dav in dealing' with the facts -of the case, lie then touched on the law poiius. The further hearing of .the case was adjouri'ed until this morning.