Feilding Motor Collision Case

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 232, 2 October 1935, Page 3

Feilding Motor Collision Case

HALCOMBE-TOKOEANGI ROAD INCIDENT The services of a Maori interpreter were required' in the hearing of a motor collision case dealt with by Mr R. M. Watson, S.M., at the freilding Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Tahi Kingi, of Kai Iwi pa, Kauwhata, sued E. M. Borham, radio dealer, of Palmerston North, for £lB 13s lid, being tho cost of repairs and damages arising out of a collision which occurred on the Halcombe-Tokorangi road.

Plaintiff, giving evidence through an interpreter, said that defendant's car, with trailer attached, appeared to be approaching tho bridge at an excessive speed, and in fact seemed to be “wriggling along tho road like an eel.” Plaintiff stopped his truck, as he anticipated trouble, and after the collision defendant said that the reason for the trouble was tho defective condition of tho brakes on his car. Defendant agreed that he would pay for the damage and thereupon conveyed plaintiff and his passengers to Fcilding. On the way defendant demonstrated how his brakes were defective and tho fact that they were only operating on ono wheel was the cause of tho wriggling of the vehicle as it approached the bridge. On arrival at Hooper and Lowe's garage in Feeding defendant said that he would be responsible for the damage and arrangements were mado for the collection of plaintiff's truck and the repairs to be done. Later plaintiff asked Hooper and Lowe to write a letter to defendant for payment as he could not get his truck, but no reply was 5 received.

To. Mr Helling (for defendant): Plaintiff was first on the bridge and had he not stopped the -crash would have been more serious, with possible injury to plaintiff and his passengers. Supporting evidence for plaintiff was given through the interpreter (Mr Moffat) by two Maoris who were travelling in Kingi’s truck. Walter George Hooper, of Hooper Lowe and Co., recalled the occasion on which plaintiff and defendant visited his garago with regard to an accident. Witness wanted to know who was going to pay and plaintiff said that defendant would, and defendant did not disputo this. Defendant said that he was insured, and from his demeanour witness was satisfied that there would bo no trouble about tho account.

To Mr Belling: It was a fairly old vehicle and had been through several hands. Its value would be round tabout £2O.

Counsel for defend ant submitted that the facts were other than what had been set out by plaintiff. Borham claimed to be on the bridge before plaintiff and had expected plaintiff to pull up because it appeared that it was a one-car bridge. Plaintiff was travelling fast and as he appeared to intend to go on to the bridge, defendant applied his brakes in an effort to check his car, which had a trailer attached. Defendant’s contention was that ho had the right of way and that plaintiff should have stopped before reaching the bridge. Borhani denied ever admitting any liability and this was supported by the witness Hooper. The Magistrate questioned this, and stated that the inference to be drawn from tho conversation at Hooper-Lowe and Co.’s garage, when plaintiff said Borham would pay, was that defendant admitted liability.

Defendant then gave evidence and set out that he saw plaintiff's truck approaching the bridge, and his appreciation of the position Jed him to believo that it was a one-car bridge and that as he was the nearer vehicle, plaintiff would stop and give way. However, it was apparent that plaintiff was going to go on to the bridge and witness applied his brakes, causing his car to swerve. He travelled on to tho bridge to meet the truck at the other end, which had stopped with the front wheels on the bridge. After hearing supporting evidence the Magistrate entered judgment for plaintiff for £ls, with costs totalling £6 Is 6d. Mr. D. C. Cullinane appeared for plaintiff.