MOTOR-CARS COLLIDE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 275, 14 August 1920, Page 8

MOTOR-CARS COLLIDE

.£530 DAMAGES CLAIMED,

As the result of a collision between two motor-cars in Tasman Street on June :W nis nonour Mr. Justice Edwards and a iurv of twelve were called on to hear n claim for .£530 damages in the SnnTemo Court yesterday. . The plawhff was Thomas Hull, painter, ot Wellington, and the defendants, fairer .Tames Gardner and William John March, taxi proprietors, of Wellington. Mr T. Neave appeared for plaintiff and Mr. 11. I'. O'Lcarv for the defendants. ■ The case for tho plaintiff was that on tho date in question Gardner was driving a motor-car at an excessive- speed and on the wrong side of the road. As a consennence a collision occurred with, plaintiff's car. which was thrown against a lir ek wall and upset. P nintiff's car was damaged' the chassis being bent and buckled, and '.he apparatus <lan™?«\ " was further set out that plaintiff had been deprived of the nso of the car i» his business since the date of the mishap, and would continue to lose its use for an indefinite period. On behalf of the defendant, who denied all the principal, allegations of the ulainliff it was maintained that the accident' was duo to the negligent driving of the plaintiff in coming from Rugby Street into Tasman Street at an excessive speed, in turning a corner at an exo"4e speed, in travelling on the wrong side of the road, and in failing to give warning of his approach. Defendants further contended that by the exercise of reasonable care plaintiff could havo avoided the accident. As a/ result of the allced negligenco of plaintiff, defendants st tel that they had lost the use of, the, enr for a considerable period and, having suffered loss and damage, they conn-ter-claimed for ,£195 damages Plaintiff denied the allegations set forth in the counter-claia. ~ . Plnintiff tendered evidenco and called .several eye-witnesses of the collision. These gave different estimates of the speed of tho defendants' car, some, statin* that Gardner was driving recklessly and dangerously, and others that the car va« travelling at a speed of between fifty and sixty miles an hour. Walter Stanton, motor garage proprietor, of Molosworth Street, who was an occupant of plaintiff's car at the time of Hie accident, said that when approaching Tn'mnii Street plaintiff sounded his horn, and drove tho car. ahead at a speed which witness considered to be slightly above a walking 1 pace. He heard .tho engine of the defendants' car roaring, and tlio next thing he was aware of was that plaintiff's car was struck at tho back, after which it. appeared to toboggan through space," until it brought up against n brick wall, where it capsized. Ho could not estimate the speed at which defendant car was travelling because it was running at such a "ridiculous pace. lUter the accident none of the occupants of Hie defendants' car returned to sen what-had happened to ptavntvE s ma' Frederick William M'Courtie, traffic inspector employed !>y the. City Council, slated that when he interviewed Gardner tho latter stated that at the time of the accident he had a passenger who wanted to get into town quickly, and that both cars were travelling at about twenty miles an hour. After '-he conclusion of the plaintiff s case, tho hearing was adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day.