MOTOR v. DOG.

Feilding Star, Volume IV, Issue 1131, 11 March 1910, Page 4

MOTOR v. DOG.

THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT

PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED

At the S.M. Court yesterday afternoon, the case AVest (Mr Prior) v. Adams (Mr Graham), was further heard. Continuing under cross-examina-tion to Mr Graham, the plaintiff, C. H. AVest, said he would swear Adams did not say, on the night of the occurrence, that it was-an accident, nor did Adams say 7 he would pay a few pounds towards the value of the dog. Witness would not dispute that Adams ran the car backwards after the occurrence, though ho did not remember it. Witness told 'Adams that lie was hugging his (witness') side or the road too much. Witness was perfectly satisfied when Adams said ho ivould pay for the dog. Witness found the dog on th* left-hand side of the road, where he understood tho dog had been carried to by a cyclist. AA .ion witness went to the dog there were two men there—one a cyclist. Re-examined by Mr Prior, witness said his dogs were obedient to his call—they had to be. Unless a sheep dog was obedient to his calls, he would he useless. Before tho accident, he saw "Tweed" behind him. Ho would swear that "Tweed" was on witne%' side of the road. After the dog was hit, the car went only about its own length. Adams went on without examining the car. By the Court: It was not a fact that the car was worked backwards to us© the lights of the car to look for the dog. Mr Graham moved for a non-suit on the ground that plaintiff had not sufficiently proved his case. Mr Prior submitted that the evidence was clear that defendant wr.s hugging the wrong side of the road, and if that was pot negligence ..nisei did 'not know what '.negligence was, The Magistrate said he did rot think there was sufficient evidence or negligence on the part of the defendant. The car was evidently bein-r driven at a slow rate of speed,' all the. lights were lit, and the only evidence of negligence was that defendant was on the wrong side of tho road. The Bench was not satisfied that even that evidence was sufficiently stroii" to call on the defendant to* answer. Plaintiff would be non-suited. Witnesses' expenses, amounting to 31s solicitor's fee £1 Is, and Court costs fas. were allowed against the plaintiff.