SUPREME COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XX, Issue 295, 2 December 1930, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

NAPIER QUARTERLY SESSION CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CONTINUED. BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. JUSTICE BLAIR. The hearing of tho claim for £2OOO damages was continued in the Supreme Court this morning before His Honour Mr. Justice Blair. Margaret Mackintosh claims that sum from Ainsley Clarence Holden, as damages for the loss of her husband in a car accident on the Napier-Waiioa road on May 31 last, alleging negligence on the part of the defendant. Guy Bochford, surveyor, of Napier, gave evidence that he hud drawn up two plans, one showing the general lay-out of the road and other showing the extent of vision between two drivers approaching one another. If tho ear was three feet from the bank and the van one foot from the Dana the visibility of the van rounding he corner would be 92 feet. His Honour: That is assuming that the position of the cars was as uleged by plaintiff. The defendant alleges that he was three feet from his proper side of tho road. Takiug his statement and the fuct that Porter was two feet from the bank, what would be the visibility of the Ford car! Witness: 108 feet. Ainsley Clarence Holden, tthe defendant, a cook from Kotemaori, stated that ho had driven can for three years, had owned three aud done about 30,000 miles in all. On the day of the accident ho left Kotetuaori with his wife and Miss Burgess as passengers for V.’aikare. Before the accident he was travelling about 1to 20 miles an hour on tho gorge side of the road about three teet from the edge. He saw Porter coming at about 20 miles an hour. He immediately pulled over to his left side at the same time applying the foot brake. Porter made no attempt to stop and, seeing that the van’» right wheel was heading straight for film, be jammed on the brakes, ana was practically stationary when hit. His skid-marks showed a skid of only 5 feet. Miss Burgess, who was m the back seat, said: “They've gone ovei the bank." Ho replied “No! Never.’’ and they all got out of the car. His wife and Miss Burgess went down to Waikare for help, and he stayed on tSo spot. A car camo along as he stood there, from the Napier side, passing his car Floyd came along and accused him of being on the wrong side of the roud. He asked: “How do you make that out!’’ “Well, look at your wheel murks.” Witness said to him that if those were his wheel marks they would bo further over towards tho gorge side. Lloyd pointed out a murk on H I bank, and said it was made »y tl wheel of the car, but witness repheu that it was an old one. Two servi cars passed whilst his car remained In the position in which he had oft it. DEFENDANT CROSS-EXAMINED. Cross-examined by Mr Lusk,witness said that his right arm was disabled, tut It did not hinder his driving. The tracks of Porter’s van were nut more than a few inches over a foot from the bank at the spot where tLc colIsion occurred. Mr Lusk: I want to put it to you, Mr Holden, that you were travelling more on your wrong side of the road than the right.—No.—l was on the correct side. Then if Porter was only one foot three inches from the bank cii his correct side how do you account for the collision, if you were only three teet from the gorge side, or your correct side!—He did not use enough caution in getting through. Did you shift your car before the police arrived.—No. What have you to say about Lloyd’s remarks to you that your car was only six feet from tho bank! —He did sot say that. i