SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 June 1930, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

GREYMOUTH CIVIL SITTINGS. PEDESTRIAN v. MOTORIST. Damages totalling £798 13/- were claimed at the Supreme Court, Greymouth, to-day, by Egidio Bearzatti (Mr P. J. O’Regan, with him Mr AV. J. Joyce) from Frederick Walter Wise (Mr C. S. Thomas)), as the result of an alleged motor accident. The statement of claim set out that on Saturday, June 29, 1929, when approaching the main railway station at Greymouth, plaintiff was struck by a motor car driven by defendant; that his right leg was fractured, in consequence of which he has since been totally disabled from working, and he has suffered serious and permanent injury; that defendant was driving from the direction of Mackay Street towards the railway station, and that the accident was due to his negligence, in that (1) he was driving at an excessive speed, and (2) he gave no signal or other indication that the car was approaching; that plaintiff was a miner, and his average earnings prior to the accident were not less than £4 15/6 per week. He claimed, as special damages, 41 weeks’ wages at £4 15/6 per week, amounting to £195 15/-, medical and hospital expenses £lO2 18/-, and £5OO as general damages, a total of £798 13/The defence was a general denial of all plaintiff’s allegations, it being stated that plaintiff was at no time struck by a car driven by defendant. The case was heard by Mr Justice Adams and the following jury; Richard Barker (foreman), Paul Mordaunt, Thomas Bond, Charles King Millar, George AVright, Henry Hoffman, George Gilbert, Herbert Moore, George Nimmo, Alfred Ernest Kilgour, Thomas E. Johns, and Edward Roland Curtin.

Dr. William Anderson Bird, who examined plaintiff with Dr. Denavon, at the hospital, four days after the accident (in the absence of Dr. Moore), stated that Bearzatti was suffering from a compound fracture of the lower end of the right tibia, and a fracture of the right tibula. The injuries were serious, because septic inflammation involving the ankle joint was present. AVitness had not examined plaintiff since October, and could not give an estimate as to permanent disability. The injuries were consistent with plaintiff being struck by a motor car.

Dr. James Francis Cleveland Moore, Medical Superintendent of the Grey Hospital, stated that, when he examined plaintiff on October 3, he had suppurated arthritis of the right ankle joint and other complications. The right leg had apparently been fractured, and there was lateral dislocation of the foot, the injury being serious. The foot was practically immovable, and plaintiff had had a bad time. He left the hospital in January, but was re-admitted in April for removal of a piece ‘of dead bone. Witness saw plaintiff on the last occasion yesterday. He still had complete stiffness at the ankle joint, which could not be remedied. There was some movement in the foot, but it was painful to plaintiff when he walked on an uneven surface. His right leg was one and a-quarter inches shorter than his left, as a result of the operation, and the muscles of the leg were wasted. It was difficult to assess the damage, as witness was of opinion that the disability would not be in a stationary condition for a further nine months. To-day plaintiff had a 50 per cent, loss of the use of his right leg from the knee down. Plaintiff was, however, better off than if he had an artificial leg. At the present time, his disability was complete, so far as hard work was concerned. He would be unable to do hard work for at least nine months, and after that, the injuries should again be assessed. Witness could not assess permanent disability for at least nine months. The adaptability of the human frame had to be considered. *

To Mr Thomas: Plaintiff to-day could do work which did not require muscular strain on his leg or walking on an uneven surface. His capacity at the end of a further nine months was a matter for experiment.

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE. Egidio Bearzatti, 28, stated, in Italianised English, that he had been working at the Rewanui mine for four years prior to the accident. On the day of the accident, he was walking from the riverside station to the main station, to get his ticket. He saw a car coming along very fast, and stopped to allow it to pass, but the car swerved and went straight towards him. He endeavoured to escape by stepping forward on his left leg towards the main station. He then felt a big shock on his right leg, and fell to the ground. He got up and tried to walk, but could not do so, and was picked up and carried into the station, subsequently being removed to the hospital in the ambulance. To Mr Thomas: He was told in the hospital by Mr Perotti that a man named Farrell would give evidence. Another witness, Pearson, was not going to say that he saw the accident. “Bill” Henderson would say that he saw the accident. The car was in ■ the centre of the road. Witness was three or four yards from the middle line of the road when he stopped. /He did not think the car would swerve towards him. He denied putting his hands over his face, hesitating, stepping forward, and then stepping back into the path of the car. The latter had good lights; the night was dark. He had no idea of the actual speed of the car, but he had never seen others travel so quickly at that place. William Farrell, bushman, Bell Hill, stated that he was in the doorway of the main station, and saw the accident. The time was about 5.45 p.m., and it was neither light nor dark. He saw a car approaching from, Mackay Street. Bearzatti was standing 15 to 18 yards away from witness. As the car approached it swerved and ran into Bearzatti. It was travelling very fast, and went two or three chains after the man was struck. The car would be' about six or seven yards from plaintiff when it altered its course and swerved towards him. Witness had never seen a car travel so fast past the station. Had the car not swerved, it would have passed between witness and Bearzatti. The latter was struck by the front wheel. To Mr Thomas: He former!v lived at Dunollie. He did not hear any-’

one asking for witnesses of the accident. He did not tell the police or Traffic Inspector Sloss anything about the accident.

Mr Thomas: Why did you not do so? AVitness was reluctant to answer, and Mr Thomas alleged the reason was that the evidence given by Farrell to-day was wholly untrue. Farrell swore that he was telling the truth, and said he was not there to tell lies. Mr Thomas: Have you always taken that view, Farrell?—Always. You have never told a lie on oath? —No.

Farrell stated that if the police had made enquiries, he would have told them about the accident. Mr Thomas said that Constable Patterson asked for witnesses after the accident, but Farrell did not respond. In answer to further question, Parrel said that some time before Christmas he was approached by Mr Perotti, and he then made a statement in writing.

After further questions, Mr Thomas accused Farrell of “dodging,” and MxO’Regan offered to produce the statement made by witness to Perotti, but Mr Thomas refused to allow that to be done.

The luncheon adjournment was then taken, and, on the applications of Mr Thomas, His Honor warned Farrell and the witnesses who had previously given evidence that they must not meanwhile have any communication with witnesses not so fax’ called. AWARD SET ASIDE Evidence was heard at Hokitika yesterday by His Honor on a motion by the Official Assignee in the bankrupt estate of John Drake, for leave to enforce an award against Bahay Saraty, and a counter-motion by Bahay Saraty for an order setting aside the award. Mr. W. P. McCarthy appeared for the Official Assignee, and Messrs J. Murdoch and J. A. Park for Miss Saraty. The award was made by three arbitrators, and was dated March 12, 1930. It awarded the Drake estate £531 in respect to a building erected for Miss Saraty in Boundary Street, Greymouth. Legal argument was commenced before His Honoi’ at Greymouth last Tuesday and the case was them adjourned to Hokitika for the hearing of evidence. Mr. McCarthy called Charles Calvert, of Christchurch, builder, and Mr. Murdoch called AViliam James Dennehy of Greymouth, carpenter. After hearing further legal argument, His Honoi' held that the award was informal, and could not be enforced. He declined to remit it to the arbitrators fox' amendments. Costs were allowed against the Official Assignee, £l5/15/ counsel’s fee on the first motion and £7/7/- on the second motion, with disbursements and witnesses’ expenses.