CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10734, 3 November 1928, Page 7

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

PASSENGER INJURED IN MOTOR MISHAP. ACTION FOR £1348. UNUSUAL EVIDENCE. Association.-* WELLINGTON, Nov. 2. in the claim lor £1348 11s damages by Margaret Ellen Motley (2.i> of Dannevirke, against William Elliott and William Whitfield, of Napier, service car and Hector Stanley McClelland, motor driver, for injuries received by the upsetting of a service car, evidence was given for plaintiff by one witness that he had been asked by the driver to take a file and puncture the tyre, so that he could say he had had a “blowout.”

Evidence was also given that the defendants. Whitfield and Elliott, both owned cars which were run under the name of Whitfield’s Motor Service. A man named Galt had been Inlying a ear from Elliott, but the arrangement ceased in December. Elliott told a witness lie was finished with Galt until he found £l5O. Eor the defence it was contended that no negligence had been shown by the driver, and that Whitfield and Elliott did not own the car, but Galt did. The driver, McLelland. in the box. said ho was employed by Galt and not by Whitfield or Elliott. Galt had engaged him for a. fortnight. Plaintiff’s counsel produced a statement of defence filed in July, in which McLelland admitted he was employed by Whitfield and Elliott, and in reference to this, and to McLelland’s denial that ho had asked a witness to puncture the tyre, counsel asked which of the two was committing perjury. McLelland .said the other was lying. Counsel asked if that witness had perjured himself to get McLelland and the others into difficulty. “You,” lie said, “are 23. and have no assets.” Witness also denied the truth of some of the other evidence for plaintiff, and was asked by counsel if ho was accusing these witnesses also of perjury.' “What have you committed ?” he said, “is it perjury, or is this statement of defence of yours 1 have put in wrongf I give you up,” McLelland,..re-examined, said he bad not seen the statement of de fence filed in July. McLellan, re-examined, said he had not seen the statement of defence filed in July. McLelland admitted that the receipt for fares given to plaintiff bore the name “Whitfield’s Motor. Service.” Evidence was given that Allan was not told to puncture the tyre, but only to nick *up tlie spare parts lying oh the ground. Witnesses also said that- the accident was consistent with a blow-out. At the close of an hour’s retirement- the jury found McLelland negligent, and he was liable, as also was Ehiott, the owner ’of the vehicle, but Whitfield was not liable, and awarded £450 general damages and £47 15s special damages. :