DEATH OF A COLLIE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 23 November 1927, Page 11

DEATH OF A COLLIE.

MOTORIST'S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE. DROVER ’S CLAIM DISMISSED. The case in which Lancelot Goodget. junior, of Hawera, drover, alleging that the death of a collie dog on the Waihi Road on October 11 had been due to the negligent driving of a motor car by Henry Moller, motor salesman, the plaintiff claiming £2O, the value of the dog from the latter, was concluded in the Hawefa Court before Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., to-day and resulted in a dismissal of the claim. Mr L. A. Taylor appeared for plaintiff and Mr P. O’Dea for defendant. As already reported, plaintiff’s evidence, which "was taken in the Hawera Hospital, where he was confined as the result of a subsequent accident, ascribed the accident as being due to the speed with which defendant was driving, plaintiff giving the opinion that the car was travelling at from 45 to 50 miles an hour. ESTIMATE OE SPEED. Laurie Bryant, butcher’s assistant, said in evidence to-day that he had been in company with plaintiff and together they were driving stock on the Waihi Road, in the direction of Normanby, from the Denbigh Road. When about 150 to 200 yards past High Street junction they were overtaken uy a car driven by defendant, travelling at about 40 to 45 miles an hour and the car struck one of plaintiff’s dogs, killing it almost instantly. The dog was one of three and was a leader, and just before being struck had been sent to clear the road of the stock for the approaching car. The dog had driven the stock to the left of the tarred surface. It then came round the right of thcsteers and was struck by the left front of the car, which had not slackened speed. The dog dragged itself off the road yelping far a short time and tr.e car had pulled up in about three or four lengths on the right hand side of the road with both right hand wheels off the starred surface.

Mr. O’Dea: Tour estimate of the distance travelled by the car is the same as that given by Mr. Goodger in his evidence taken at the hospital. Have you discussed it with him? Witness: I have been to the hospital twice to see my father, but was unable -to see Lance, a,s be was m aroom by himself. But you knew he said it was three or four lengths ?—Yes, anyone could have seen that in the paper the next night. . ~ Under further cross-examination, witness said that plaintiff had whistled to the dog several times after the -appearance of the car. A BLIND CORNER.

“The Waihi Road corner is a blind corner and unless a motorist takes it at a walking pace he takes a chance. I went round at a walking pace, ’ said:. defendant in his evidence. Ho con-, tended that lie approached the cattle at about 12 to 15 miles an hour The dog, which appeared to be out of oontr<Ti, was at the bead of ■a mob ot steers. He bad veered to the left to pass round tlic dog, but it doubled back on its former track, and it was impossible to avoid it. Witness pulled up within about a. car’s length The car was -a new one, which had run only about 200 miles, and it was part of his custom as a salesman to keep the soee-d of new cars below 20 miles

an hour for tlie first 500 miles. lien witness stopped, Goodger rushed up and said: This will cost you a —- tenner, and had afterwards amended the amount to £2O. Leo Newman, a stock agent, gave evidence that a good leader dog would be worth anything from £lO to £2O. ALLEGED PACE IMPOSSIBLE. “In face of the fact that defendant was not prosecuted I must ask that the claim be dismissed,” said Mr. O’Dea to tlie court. Counsel referred to tlie lengthy experience of defendant as a driver, his good reputation, and also stressed the, contention that it would have been impossible for defendant to negotiate the, High Street corner and within 150 to 200 yards accelerate to 40 to 45 miles an Hour. At, Lsuoli a speed he would have been at the point, of impact in less than four seconds, vet it, had been stated in the evidence that plaintiff had several times whistled to the dog and sent itto clear the road after the car appeared round the corner. Counsel Concluded by quoting legal precedent having a bearing on the case. In his address, Mr. Taylor urged the principle in accordance with which a, property owner must use Ins own, property so as i not to hurt the property of others, and quoted lengthy precedent to support the claim. The point at issue, said counsel, was whether defendant so carelessly used the car as to cause the death of the animal. A driver was required to

honestly exercise judgment, and while he would not say that the animal had been wilfully run -down, counsel submi tied that defendant should have slowed up, speed being the factor which made him liable. . Reviewing the evidence, the Magistrate intimated that the most reasonable interpretation of the circumstances appeared to be the picture given by defendant. The latter’s contention that he was travelling at a moderate rate of speed was strongly supported by the movements of the dog according to plantiff, who said that after seeing the car he had whistled the dog to stop, signalled again to send the dog round the stock, and gave a third whistle to drive the stock across the road. In the opinion of the Magistrate it would have been impossible for this to take place in less than five seconds. He could not hold that negligence had been proved, and the claim would be dismissed. Defendant was allowed' £2 2<s> costs.