SEQUEL TO A COLLISION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15145, 8 November 1912, Page 5

SEQUEL TO A COLLISION.

A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES*. A. cl.um for £37. Is damages- in respect of injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of a collision between a tramcar and a scoria cart, was heard by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., yesterday in the Magistrate's Court. .. The plaintiff, Claude Randolph Marmont, was represented by Mr. Hall Skel-1 ton. Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., appeared for the Auckland Electric Tramways Company, on whose behalf Mr. W. D. Lysaght, manager of the claim department, watched the proceedings. Tho plaintiff stated that on May 16 last ho was driving a cart laden with scoriaup Eden Terrace towards Symonds-street. Ho had been keeping on his proper side of the road. Owing to a cart being left unattended at the side of the road, plaintiff was obliged to drive on. to the .tramlines in order to pass that vehicle. Before crossing over he looked back. Plaintiff was passing the cart when ho looked behind him for the second time. He then saw a tramcar not very fax off. The motorraan had his back turned to the way he was going, plaintiff alleged,, and.seemed to be looking into the car. Plaintiff had just time to shout out a warning to tho motorman when the car struck the cart with some force. Plaintiff was thrown; heavily to the ground, injuring his leg; Owing to. this injury, plaintiff was under a doctor's treatment for nine weeks, and for twelve weeks he was out of work. Dr. Harding Porter deposed to treating the plaintiff after ' the accident, and described his injuries;-• ■■ Further evidence was given by passengers who were in the tramcar at the time of the accident. Mr. Reed submitted that there was no case to answer, and applied for a nonsuit. ■,•■'■.-'■-..'■ The .magistrate held that, although tho case for-plaintiff might be weak, ho could Dot non-suit him at that point, and the case.would have to-be ..proceeded with. The only witness for tho defence was Charles Munro, the motorman of tho tramcar concerned. He. deposed to seeing tho cart in front on the loft side of tho road. Ringing his gong to warn plaintiff, witness proceeded at about eight, miles an hour. Plaintiff's cart suddenly, without any warning, turned across the tram-lines, unci the collision took place. Witness denied having his back turned. , In cross-examination, witness admitted having been convicted for negligence in the Police Court in. respect to this acci-, dent. The magistrate said that it had been Laid down that such conviction did not warrant a civil action for damages, as there might bo contributory negligence. He suggested that if tho plaintiff bad shown contributory negligence, notwithstanding that tho defendant might be guilty of negligence too, ho (plaintiff) was not entitled to damages in a. civil action. The case was adjourned, so that the magistrate might inspect,the scene of the accident. " ■