CUM AGAINST AN INSURANCE COMPANY

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 171, 22 July 1939, Page 3

CUM AGAINST AN INSURANCE COMPANY

Echo of Collision in Kimbolton Road QUESTION OF DRIVER’S SOBRIETY Refusal of an insurance company to pay out on damages sustained by two cars which had collided resulted in a Supreme Court action before Hon. Mr. Justice Blair and jury of four in Palmerston North yesterday. Plaintiff was James Nathaniel Cameron, car painter, of Feilding, and defendants the New Zealand Insurance Company. The refusal to meet the damages was based on on allegation that Camefon at the time , of the mishap was in a state of intoxic- j ation. The claim was for £23 9s in respect of plaintiff’s own car and £59 l ( Js in respect of the other, belonging to Kathleen Casey and driven by Angus McD. Sinclair, farmer, of Feilding. The accident happened at tho intersection of Aorangi Street and Kimbolton Road, Feilding, at 7.30 on the evening of Sep:ember 10, 1938. The jurymen chosen were Messrs. F. S. C. Hubbard (foreman), 11. A. Silon, W. H. T. James and E. G. Walker. Mr. A. M. Ongley appeared for plainiff and Mr. D, C. Cullinano for doendants. His Honour at the outset said he could not see why tho case could not ave been brought before a magistrate. Mr. A. M. Ongley said there were particular reasons.

His Honour: I can t see any. As the defence was an affirmative one, evidence for the insurance company was called first. xVlfred Kingston, insurance adjuster, produced a statement given him by Cameron, in which the latter had confessed to four drinks of beer between 4.30 and 5 p.m. on the day of the mishap.

Constable Strawbridge, of Feilding, said he saw Cameron soon after tho collision and could smell drink in his breath while plaintiff was also swaying and unsteady on his feet. Plaintiff seemed to resent witness making any inquiries into the accident and adopted a nasty attitude. Later, at the police station, witness noticed that Cameron was heavy about the eyes an<l had tho appearance of a man recovering from the effects of alcohol. Witness said he had considered arresting Cameron on a charge ot being intoxicated while at the wheel but was of opinion Cameron would'just about pass the doctor’s test, so did nothing. Witness was definite that it was a bordcr-lino case of intoxication iu the motoring sense. Witness said 110 saw plaintiff at an hotel about 6 p.m. His ear was there also and witness again saw it outside the hotel at 7.30 p.m. Witness considered Cameron’s driving ability had been impaired as a result of the liquor consumed.

To Mr. Ongley witness added that after the accident lie had been driven by Cameron, to the latter’s home to get a driving license and then back to the police station, there being no fault to find with the driving. However, they had "proceeded slowly. Counsel: Because the car was damaged. Police-Sergeant E. 11. Turner, of Feilding, said he also had noticed Cameron had been drinking and had seen him in tho Feilding hotel at 6 o ’clock. After the collision witness again saw plaintiff and considered him a border-line case. Cameron had made contradictory statements as to how the accident had occurred. This concluded the case for the defence. Mr. Ongley called evidence in robuttal. Cameron said ho had four or five drinks at the Feiiding hotel after work and then went home about 5 o’clock. It was not till 7 o’clock that he went out again to get chocolates. On the way he gave a lift to a Mrs. Wilton, then secured the chocolates from Airs. Nesbitt,

who had a shop by the Feilding hotel, and finally was on his way home when the collision occurred. He helped to get the Sinclairs from the other car, went to a nearby bowser station to ring for a doctor, and went back to tho scene, where ho was speaking with Dr. Maclaurin. Ho drove Constable Strawbridge away to get his driving license, and on the way back left the damaged car at his shop and walked the remainder of tho distance to the police station. ’fo Air. Cullinano; Tho police witnesses were wrong when they said they saw him in the hotel at 6 p.m. He had no drinks at home aud was not affected considerably by drink at the time of j the mishap. Plaintiff considered the police were biased because he had not | given them a statement. Dr. W. Al. Maclaurin, of Feilding, who spoke to Cameron at the scene, said the latter was excited tut witness did not notice that ho was affected by liquor. To Air. Cullinane: lie only saw Cameron for about i £ minutes aud never gave a thought to the question of his sobriety at the time, lie admitted the police who had Cameron in their company for a quarter of an hour would be ; tho better judges as to plaintiff’s' sobriety. Airs. 1. Al. Wilton said that when plaintiff gave her a lift home sho observed no sign of liquor about him, Mrs. B. .Nesoitt, confectioner, said that when Cameron bought chocolates he showed no signs of liquor. J. A. O. Lamberton, garage attendant, said that Cameron seemed quite sober at the scene of the mishap. C. H. Nash, service station attendant, declared that there was nothing wrong with Cameron. C. J. Way, garage foreman, stated that the steering gear of plaintiff ’s car had been damaged by the mishap and the car would bo difficult to steer when

Cameron drove with tho constable after tho smash.

His Honour: That is the car’s testi* monial as to his sobriety, I suppose. This concluded the evidence. Tho jury returned with a verdict for Cameron,