SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 285, 30 October 1934, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

EVIDENCE BEFORE JURY,

The hearing was continued m the Supreme Court at Palmerston North to-day before His Honour Mr Justice Blair, and a jury of twelve, of the civil action in which Henry Morris, labourer, of Newman, near Eketaliuna (Mr H. It. Cooper) claimed iIoUU general and £4l 18s special damages from Mrs Katherine Annie Johnston, of Eketsimna'(Mr H. Lawson, of Eeatherston), for injuries allegedly Buffered through being knocked off his cycle by a car driven by defendant, it was stated that the accident had occurred on the main road near Eketaliuna on June 4 last. , Constable J. AValker, of Eketahuna, cave evidence that there were skidmarks on the- right-hand side of the road going toward Eketahuna, nine feet long. The marks were thus on the car’s wrong side. At the end of the skid mark there was a blood mark. The distance from the commencement of the skid to the back of the car where it stopped against a power pole was 72 feet. The car had a dent m the left-hand mudguard, a hole in the left liand side of the windscreen and a darnaged right-hand running board. Witnes reported the matter to his headquarters. There had been no prosecution of Mrs Johnston in regard to her driving. . . Cross-examined, witness said he nad not seen any blood marks on the lefthand side of the road. Re-examined, witness said lie found no blood marks at a spot indicated to him as that where plaintiff was picked up. . That concluded the evidence for the defence. in addressing the jury counsel for the defence submitted there was no question as to defendant’s skill as a driver and she had done all that any motorist could do in applying the brakes and swerving off the road. There was no question before the jury as to her not sounding the horn. The real point at issue was just where the collision actually took place. It would not be reasonable, he said, that a careful motorist had run plaintiff down when he had been cycling on his correct side of the road. Evidence had

been given that the major portion of the car was on the right-hand side of § the road where it was to pass the jfi cyclist. Counsel submitted that the I; general damages claimed, £ISOO, were |: exorbitant. |. Counsel for plaintiff stated that the jk jury need not consider at all whether Hi plaintiff had been negligent, as that |f did not enter into the case. The issue i hinged on whether the collision was £ due to defendant’s alleged negligence or not. It was not reasonable to sup- | pose that the cyclist had crossed the IF road in front of the car. I In summing up, His Honour termed i| : the facts in dispute as being very, very |f narrow. He then proceeded to draw |c the attention of the jury to various gf sections of the evidence at considerable I length, pointing out, however, that the | whole case revolved on the question: If Where on the road did the collision 1 ; take place? if The jury retired at 12.45 p.m. and fe were still out when the luncheon adit jourmnent was taken.