SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 285, 30 October 1934, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

ACTION FOR DAMAGES

THE EKETAHUNA CASE

The case in which Henry Morris, a labourer, of Newman, near Eketahuna, brought a civil action, as the result of a motor accident, against Mrs Katherine Annie Johnston, of Eketahuna, claiming £1541 18s damages, was continued in tile Supreme Court before His Honour Mr Justice Blair and a jury of twelve at Palmerston North yesterday. Mr H. It. Cooper appeared for plaintiff and Mr Lawson, of Featherston, for defendant. Gordon Kenneth Harry Morris, son of plaintiff, testified that after the accident he had visited the scene and had observed a blood-stain on tbe lefthand wheel track and opposite the big gate at Mr Edge’s place. The car was standing alongside an electric light pole and he traced its marks back to a toi-toi bush. His brother-in-law, Mr Kent, had accompanied him on the inspection. Eric Neil Kemp, of Newman, gave evidence that he arrived at the scene of the accident shortly after it occurred. He found a patch of blood on the left-hand traffic rut facing towards Eketahuna. Commencing by the toi-toi bush, skid marks were visible, starting in the right-hand rut, going over to the left-hand rut, and back to the right-hand rut to finish against the power pole after a distance of 107 feet. Desmond D. Ryan, garage proprietor, of Eketahuna, stated that when he examined the car after the accident he found the glass of the windscreen broken on the left hand side. He saw defendant, who was very excited. Witness thought she said she “ran into somebody.” It appeared from the marks on the road that the brakes had been very severely applied for a distance of about two feet. The car had apparently l>een travelling in the traffic ruts with its rear wheels slightly to the left of the centre. Corroborative evidence was given by Herbert E. Rogers, a motor mechanic, concerning the ulamage to defendant’s ca r. This concluded plaintiff's case. MOVE FOR NON-SUIT. Counsel for the defence then moved for a non-suit on the grounds that there was no evidence ot negligence by defendant. His Honour commented that there might be difficulty in establishing a non-suit point, as there was clear evidence that plaintiff had been cycling in broad daylight on his correct side of the road. The case then proceeded. Entering the box, defendant gave evidence that she was returning from Dannevirke when the accident occurred on a public holiday. She had been driving on the correct side of the road when rounding a bend near Newman. Though the highway was heavily metalled, there were three distinct traffic ruts. Defendant said she had been driving at 30 to 36 miles an hour just before reach- , ing the bend. She noticed two cvclists,

one riding behind the other, in the left traffic rut. She slowed down to cross over to the right on the metal between the other wheel-ruts. Her speed was then about 25 miles an hour. She sounded the horn on approaching the rear cyclist, and just as she was overtaking him, he came across toward the centre of the road, in front of her ear without warning. She applied the brakes and swerved to the right, it was impossible to avoid an accident, and the vehicle collided with plaintiff. Something hit the side of the car, and (he windscreen was broken. Her car had gone across the road to a power pole, and she noticed the first cyclist coming back. She looked back and saw a man lying near tbe side of the road, towards the centre. After that she endeavoured to give assistance. She had been driving a car for eighteen months prior to the accident, and had made some long trips.

Cross-examined, defendant stated that there were heavy ridges of metal, difficult to cross with a cycle, between the ruts. Plaintiff came diagonally towards the centre of the road. She did not know there had l>een an impact until the broken glass in the windscreen began to fall. Plaintiff had not signalled to her that he was about to cross tbe road.

Proceedings were then adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.