MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 30 March 1931, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CIVIL CASjES Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following civil cases by Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court this morning: D. H. Brown and Son y. H. Holyoake, £ll 4s, costs £2 14s; State Advances Superintendent v. Wilfred Pope, £BO 6s, costs £2 0s 6d; IL Baigcnt v. S. Barnett, £2 4s 7d, costs £1 7s 6d; S. Blomfielcl and J. Glasgow v. J. C, Wright, £66, costs £4 11s 6d.

PLAINTIFF NONSUITED In the civil action W. U. 11. Cole (Mr J. It. Kerr) v. Albert Lusty (Mr S. 11. Moynagh) and Claude Lusty (Mr H. Cheek)! for £23 15s 6d damages alleged Lo have been done to plaintiff's car as a result of defendant A. Lusty’s negligent driving, the Magistrate in his reserved decision, non-suited plaintiff in respect to both defendants, with witnesses’ expenses £l, solicitors’ fees £6 6s. In his judgment the Magistrate said: "The plaintiff alleges that the damage he sustained as a result of the accident which gives .rise to his claim was caused by the defendant’s negligence in driving ut an excessive speed and not- keeping sufficiently on his left hand side. The latter question is the only one requiring serious consideration ill my opinion. On the balance of the evidence it is impossible to determine the defendant’s speed. It was raining at the time and defendant was coming straight towards plaintiff. The witness in plaintiffs car could not therefore reliably estimate defendant’s speed. In any case if the defendant was on his correct side then it seems to me that his speed could not have caused the accident. As to (lie second question the road (between Gowan and Kawatiri) was comparatively narrow aiul defendant could not safely go nearer to his left than three feet from the edge of the cliff. He therefore had to pass comparatively close to plaintiff. Unless the defendant’s car actually touched plaintiff s car forcing him into the bank the accident must have been due to an error ot judgment on plaintiff’s part- in getting into the watertable. the plaintiff says defendant’s car grazed his but not one of the witnesses he called corroborated his statement to this effect, f ile allegation therefore I find to be not proved and accordingly plaintiff must be nonsuited.”