SEQUEL TO COLLISION

Evening Star, Issue 21091, 2 May 1932, Page 7

SEQUEL TO COLLISION

MAGISTRATE'S COURT ACTION Hearing was commenced in the Magistrate’s Court this morning of a civil action by John Stanley (Dunback) against George Walter Lanham and John Shine Lanham. The plaintiff claimed to recover £l6O 17s 6d, made up of special damages totalling £llO 17s 6d (new parts £7O 17s Cd, repairs entailed in restoration of car £2O, depreciation £2O), and general damages £SO. The statement of claim was that on January <3 last, at about 6.30 p.m., a collision took place at the southern approach to the Pleasant Valley bridge, near Palmerston, between plaintiff’s car and that of defendant, George Walter Lanham, which was being driven by John Shine Lanham. It was alleged that the collision was due to the negligence of defendant George Walter Lanham, through his servant John Shine Lanham, in so negligently and unskilfully managing and controlling his car when approaching the bridge that it collided with plaintiff’s car, which was stationary at the southern end. Plaintiff alternately sued John Shine Lanham, and stated that if it wore found that he was not the servant of the defendant George Walter Lanham plaintiff claimed from him £l6O 17s 6d. There was a counter-claim by the defendant George Walter Lanham against Stanley, defendant alleging that plaintiff so negligently drove his motor ear on the southern approach to the bridge that it collided with a car owned by defendant and driven by his son, John Shine Lanham. Defendant counterclaimed to recover £sl 13s, made up as follows: —Damage to car, £4O 3s; cost of towage, £5 10s; and depreciation, £lO.

Evidence was hoard on behalf of the plaintiff, and counsel for the defence said that if Lanhani, jmi., were found to have been negligent it would be contended that he was not the servant of Lanliam, sen., and therefore Lanham. sen., was not liable. Evidence for the defence was being hoard when the luncheon adjournment was taken.