MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22629, 22 April 1937, Page 13

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, APRIL 22. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) default” CASES. Judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs, was given by default in the following undefended casesD.X.t-. Ltd. v. JVI. Hancock, £5 Os sd, goods supplied; Butterfields Ltd. v. Herbert Wayland Pettengill (Parnassus). £2 12s sd, goods ’ supplied; Farra Bros. Ltd. v. R. Balloch (Clinton), £3, work done and goods and materials supplied; Hallenstein Ltd v, I. Reid (Auckland), £1 15s 4d,, goods supplied. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Robert Stanley Stuckey (Balclutha) proceeded against the Crystal Ice Cream Company Ltd., . claiming damages amounting to £4O 15s, resulting from a collision between the plaintiff’s car and the defendant’s truck near VVaihola. Mr B. A. Quelch represented the plaintiffs and Mr C. J. Mowat appeared for the defendant. As set out in the statement of claim, the manager of .the defendant company was driving a motor truck along the Main South road near Waihola on November 8, 1936. A collision occurred between the truck and a car driven by the plaintiff, which, it was alleged, was caused by the negligence of the driver of the truck, in that he failed to keep as far as practicable to the left of the road and was driving on the right of the centre line of the road; failed to keep a proper lookout; drove at an excessive speed; endeavoured to. _ pass a vehicle moving in the same direction as his at a bena in the road; and failed to exercise due care and skill in the control of the truck. As a result of the collision the plaintiff’s car was damaged and the plaintiff suffered loss and expense to the amount claimed, Mr Quelch said that the accident occurred at night, and when the plaintiff was near Waihola he saw the lights of three vehicles approaching, the third of which was a truck travelling on the wron gside of the road, apparently attempting to pass another car. Evidence along the lines of Mr Quelch’s statement was given by the plaintiff.—Cross-examined by Mr Mowat, the plaintiff said there were four passengers in tho_ car, and none of them had been drinking to his knowledge. He did not drink himself. After the accident the fftfendant wanted him to make it a 50-50 case, but he disagreed. . Further evidence was given by John Richard Whetter, James Spiers, and Henry Thomas Leyden. Opening the case for the defence, Mr Mowat said that it rested on the fact that if the defendant was 'negligent the plaintiff was also negligent, in that he was over the centre line of the road and was equally, if not wholly, responsible. It was agreed that night that it was a 50-50 case. The defendant took no measurements and did not know until the following week that the plaintiff intended to claim damages. It had since been-established by measurement that Stuckey was further from his side of the road than the defendant was from his. The latter strongly repudiated that he was on the wrong side of the road and trying to overtake another vehicle, but he conceded that he was well out to the centre of the road. He was about a chain behind the car in front, and when he saw plaintiff’s car approaching he commenced to pull over to his correct side. * (Proceeding.)