MOTOR FATALITY.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 1638, 16 September 1920, Page 5

MOTOR FATALITY.

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AT INQUEST. The District Coroner, Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., presided over an enquiry yesterday into the circumstances surrounding the death oil Robert Dudley Worsfold, an elderly married man, who was killed as the result of a motor car collision in Palmerston North on September Oth. Sergt. Fitzpatrick conducted the inquiry. Mr A. M. Ongley appeared on behalf of T. H. Davidson, the driver of the car, while Mr B. J. .Jacobs represented the .relatives or the deceased. Formal evidence was given by Joseph Worsfold, a son, as to the customs of his lather. Doctors Putnam and Forrest deposed as to the nature of deceased's injuries, and considered that the impact must have been severe. Deceased was riding a pushbicycle. THE DRIVER'S EVIDENCE. Henry Thomas Davidson, proprietor of the Manawatu Motor Co., King Street, said that he was driving a car down Terrace Street, and on nearing the intersection of Featherston Street noticed a cyclist (deceased), who at the time was crossing diagonally from the near corner of Featherston Street to the right-hand corner of the cycle track in Terrace Street. The cyclist was on the crown of the road in Featherston Street, and in witness's line of vision. Witness first of all intended to go straight on down Terrace Street, but when he saw the cyclist he rang his bell and indicated, with his arm, his intended direction. Witness then turned to the right. In this instance it would be the correct side for him. He intended to pass behind the cyclist, and had he not done this he would have been compelled to stop. Deceased appeared to take notice of his signal and straightened up more towards Terrace Street. Consequently witness turned into Featherston Street. The collision took place on the left-hand side of the intersection of the two streets. After the impact his car did not go more than a length. There was a lamp at the corner and a telegraph post, and he did not think the left-hand side of the car was more than 18 feet from these when the collision occurred. The cyclist appeared to lose his head, and when about four feet from the carhe seemed to turn at right angles into it and endeavour to get off his cycle. Witness said his speed was not more than six to eight miles an hour. The car he was driving belonged to a Mr Lovelock. It had been undergoing repairs, but not on that day. Witness and his mechanic named Scroggs were giving it a, trial spin as it had not been pulling too well. In order to properly test its pulling ability they had of necessity to drive slowly. He admitted that Terrace Street was practically clear of other traffic at the time.

Sergt. Fitzpatrick: If other witnesses say that deceased was not in the position as indicated by you, what would you say?— They would not be telling the truth. If you were travelling at only six miles an hour how can you account for not being able to pull your car up before running over deceased? —You could not pull up a car running at 6 miles an hour in its own length. Can you say how far the car travelled after hitting the deceased before it was pulled up?—A car's length. Would you be surprised to hear that the car, as clearly shown by the marks, was pulled up 30 yards distant from the corner, on the grass?— The car was stopped before that. The marks on the grass were those made in steering the car afterwards. Witness went on to explain that the earnever actually stopped dead immediately after hitting the man, but just ran along exceedingly slowly and he jumped out and ran back leaving the car to be steered by the mechanic. Examined by Mr Ongley, witness said that had they both kept to their original courses, nothing would have happened. Witness was the first to change his course, but he gave the necessary warnings. However, the cyclist also changed his direction, pointing immediately up Terrace Street. Witness then pulled further round on the bend, which course took him into i<\;atherston Street instead of along Terrnce Street as he had wished to go. But the cyclist again changed his course, coming diagonally towards witness. Had deceased continued on his previous route he would have finished up on the grass in Featherston Street. If he had come straight up Terrace ytivnt witness would have avoided him. Examined by Mr Jacobs, he said that he had been driving cars for two years. When he saw deceased he eased up with the footbrake and clutch, so that the pace was greatly decreased. He did not pull up before because he thought there was no occasion to do so. The car almost stopped after travelling a length past deceased.

Furthei cross-examined by Sergt. Fitznatrick. witness admitted that the car had not actually stopped from the time it hit deceased until it pulled up some distance away.

Why did you not keep to your proper side of the road when you saw deceased facing up Terrace Street? — Because 1 had already swung to my right-hand side. You realise now that if you had. kept to your left, or failing that, you had pulled up your car, the accident would not have occurred? —No. I do not.

Answering a further question on the point, witness said: If the deceased hi"? eorne along Featherston Street on his left-hand side of the road and was still on his proper side when the accident occurred, and I had crossed on ms right-hand side, then i would have been in the wrong.

AN CO YE-WITNESS'S VERSION. Lionel R. Harvey, of Feilding, said he saw Lhc deceased cycling- along' Foather.ston Street. He appeared to he nervous and was "wobbling'," but was, novcrtbele: •■. on his correct side oi' the s' >ad. At the same time he noticed p. car coming down Terrace Street. When it was near the corner the cycli t seemed to straighten up and then attempt to dismount. He wa.- th, ■ struck by the car. The accident took place at about G feet from the c - ■ing, in Featherston Street. Decea- id had not reached the main metal''.a portion of Terrace Street. Witne- ' that the car had come down i..jrraee Street on its wrong ride and w'l." 1 levelling at. about 20 miles an lioi'' \fter .striking deceased it ran on i.or 50 yards or more before it was pulled u. and it was then on its wrong' s of the road. Witness had viewed the accident from a distance of about SO ;. .' The prof.eeu were adjourned until Sat;:?' .y m< ming. when the evidence "*' vera; ether witnesses will be heard.