CLAIM FAILS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 95, 19 October 1938, Page 9

CLAIM FAILS

ACCIDENT CASE

GREYTOWN FATALITY

A verdict for defendant was returned by the jury in a case heard in the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice, Sir Michael, Myers, yesterday, when Emily Higgison, widow, of Greytown, claimed £1000 general and £24 8s 6d special damages from lan Allister Riddiford Macßae, farmer, of Tyneside, Masterton, in respect of the death of her husband following a collision between his cycle and a car driven by Macßae. The accident took place on the main road on the outskirts of Greytown on the evening of Sunday, July 10, Higgison, who was an elderly man on sustenance, dying within a few hours of the collision. Mr. H. Lawson, with him Mr. C. Evans-Scott, appeared for plaintiff and Mr. C. C. Marsack for the defendant. Evidence for the defendant was completed yesterday afternoon and counsel then addressed the jury. His Honour, in summing up, said that the jury must regard the evidence of the witness Jackson as of the greatest importance for he had been in a position which made him almost an eye-witness of the accident. Yet in spite of this and in spite of the fact that it might have been inferred from the construction of the case that Jackson was one of the plaintiff's chief witnesses, Mr. Evans-Scott had scarcely* referred to his evidence. They were asked by the plaintiff to find the defendant negligent on several counts, but was there really any evidence that he had travelled at an excessive speed, failed to keep a proper look-out, and proceeded in the face of dazzling headlights? The evidence appeared to indicate that the defendant did see the plaintiff in time to avoid an accident and if that was so, it could not be said that he was not keeping a proper look-out. Likewise the witness Jackson, who was in a position to see what happened, did not consider that Macßae was travelling at a speed which could be considered excessive. So far as the third allegation was concerned, a great deal rested upon their view of where the accident took place. If they considered it took place near the left-hand side, it would be difficult to rebut a charge of negligence on the part of the defendant. It had been argued that because the deceased man's hat and cycle pump had been found oh the left of the road that this indicated that the collision had taken place on the left-hand side. But it was quite possible for both a hat and a pump to be thrown to the side of the road by a passing car. On the other hand, the witness Jackson described the impact as taking place near the centre of the road. If the accident took place there, then it completely altered the view they must take of the case. They would remember that the majority of the gramophone records that the deceased had been carrying had been picked up toward the right of the road. They must also consider the possible influence of the lights of the oncoming car to which reference had been made. , TH^ OTHER MOTORIST. "I can only, say ihat I am sorry we don't know who that motorist was/ 1 said his Honour, "because you may well think that he was the person whose negligence was responsible for this accident. We don't know who he is but I am sorr^ that his identity has not been ascertained because, whether his action was in contravention of a statute or merely of a bylaw, such a motorist should not be allowed to have a licence." i The jury, after a retirement of a little over an hour, returned with, a verdict for defendant.