WHO WAS TO BLAME?

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14325, 22 March 1910, Page 6

WHO WAS TO BLAME?

/ A STREET COLLISION. TRAMCAR AND LORRY. Yesterday was ; occupied ; ; in the Magistrate's Court in the hearing of a case arising out of ; a ; collision which occurred recently in Hobson-street, between a tramcar -and a . lorry, loaded with, flour. Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., presided. The Northern Roller Milling > Company, Limited, who ■ were the owners of the lorry, claimed; from ; the : Auckland Electric Tramways Company the sum of £30 16s, alleged to be due as damages to the lorry, \ harness, and flour, caused by - the tramcar having run into the vehicle.; The Tramways Company counter-claimed for £25 Is Id, the cost of repairing the tramcar. : Dr. Bamford appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. J. R. Reed for the defendants.. Dr. Bamford said the whole question was whether or not the collision was attributable to the negligence :of ( the tramcar driver. , On February 1 a large lorry, owned by the plaintiffs, and driven by an experienced driver, was going up-Hobson-street., It was a three-horse lorry, and had three tons of flour on board, and at the time the accident took place it was driving on an up grade, so that it was necessarily .travelling at a slow pace. Just as it got past : Cook-street the lorry, came to a place where some repairing work was going on, the City Council's workmen being engaged in attending to the water channels on either side of the street. The way of the lorry was blocked by three vehicles, and the driver, who was on the ' right ■ side of the road, had to pull on to the up tramline to get out, of the way. A car coming up rang' its gong, and he pulled on to the down track, which was then clear. He had almost got clear when he saw a car coming down, at what the plaintiffs alleged to be an excessive rate of speed, and not under control. The upshot was that the lorry eould not get clear, and the car bumped into - it. The whole cause of the accident, the plaintiffs contended, was the want of control of the car, or the negligence of the driver in coming ' down the hill ,at all excessive rate of speed. The force of the impact and the speed of the car were evidenced by the fact that : the lorry i was thrown some 20ft or 30ft away from the car, and that, in spite of the fact that a bag of flour was jammed under the , front j "of the car, the motorman was ■' unable, to pull up until Re had gone some 35yds. ■ I Dr. Bamford called a number of witnesses, who deposed to the facts of j the case as stated. ■ After a • good deal of evidence had been taken on the same lines, the case was adjourned until 2.15 p.m. today. - , .' ;■''.;;';. >v ■■■:■'.'.-'■''''■: '■■"'. '•-.' y:':;/;']' ;^ : : *■;"■'■.''. s : :':■':.. : . r -~,'::'- ' : -'-::M:.hi-:\