SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15646, 27 June 1914, Page 7

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

TAXI-DRIVER'S CLAIM. PLAINTIFF NONSUITED. FrsALiT? was arrived at yesterday at the Magistrate's Court in the case of Arthur F. Clearwater, taxi-drivor (Mr. W. E. Moore) against the Auckland Electric Tramways Company (Mr. I. R. Reed, K.C.I in which th o plaintiff claimed £200 for alleged damage to his taxicab, and for loss\of profits, resulting from a collision between his cab and a tromcar at tho intersection of Queen and Victoria Streets, on March 18 last.

When the evidence for tho defence was continued, F. B. Cooke, an eye-witness of the collision, said that the tramcar came up Quoen Street at a speed of about eight or ten miles an hour, but slowed down to about four miles before reaching the stopping place. The motor-car also crossed the intersection of Queen and Victoria Streets at about four miles an hour. On seoing that the driver of the motor-car was going to cross tho lines witness at once concluded that .there would be trouble. The tramcar, with its speed decreasing, was only about three yards away from the motor when the driver of the latter attempted to cross the line, and the tramcar struck the front part of tho taxicab. He was of opinion that the motor-car was moving forward when the impact occurred. Mr. Rood called several witnesses, who ga*e evidence as to the slow rate at which the tramcar was travelling when the impact occurred. Two of the witnesses stated that tho taxicab approached and crossed the intersection at a rapid pace, travolline about 50yds to every 10yds covered by tho tramcar. Corroboration was also given to the statement that tho tram was only a few yards away from the taxicab when the driver of the latter attempted to cross tho lino. With one exception the witnesses were agreed that the tram was decreasing speed, up to tho time of the impact.

In giving judgment, Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M.. said that lie was perfectly certain that no jury of reasonable men could possihlv. on the evidence submitted, conscientiously find that the driver of the tramcar had been guilty of negligence which caused or contributed to the accident. The statement made by the plaintiff was in itself enough to justify that contention. The plaintiff had said that the tramcar had approached at a high rate- of speed, and the motorman was looking bo-hind. The plaintiff had merelv speculated on the chance of the tram's stopping at the accustomed place, yet, assuming that his statments regarding the speed of the car, and as to the motorman lookin" behind were, correct, ho had deliberately attempted to cross in front of the annroachine tram, even when he was in a better position than the motorman to come to a standstill. "Snch a man is the architect of his own ruin and loss," said His Worship, "iff ho chooses to act like that he can onlv blame himself if he pets smashed up. and if he ends up before the coroner." His Worship continued that i" the circumstances he was of opinion that tho accident was due entirely to the fonlbpr-iiness of tho driver of the taxicab. The plaintiff would be nonsuited, l with costs.