MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 15884, 3 April 1915, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS.

Tite case of Ralph Warren (Mr. Uren) v. Brown Bros, and Geddis (Mr. Prendergost), a claim for £2313s 6d for injuries received and special damages, through defendants' horse colliding with plaintiff's motor-cycle in Ptittoson Street, Freeman's Bay, on December 11, was concluded before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court on Thursday.

Evidence was called by plaintiff to show that the horse was vicious and should not be driven along a public thoroughfare. Samuel Hardley said that he saw the collision. The cart went up alongside the motor-cyclist and collided with him. There was a tank standing on the footpath, but he could not say whether a man had been rolling it or not. The magistrate said it was not the act of a prudent man to pass close to a horse with & motor-cycle. It was notorious how the motor-cyclists "whizzed" past people in tho street. For. the defence. Leonard James O'Hara, who was driving defendants' horse and cart, said that he had been driving horses for seven years. He was driving alone Patteson Street on December 11, and noticed a man rolling a tank along tho footpath. The horse swerved at the tank and collided with the plaintiff, who was riding past on a motor-cycle. Ho did not hear plaintiff approaching or any horn sounded. Witness fell on to the floor of the cart through the seat slipping as the result of the collision, but he kept a food hold of tho reins, and eventually pulled up tho horse at the top of Victoria Street. Defendants also called evidence to show that the horse was not vicious or addicted to diving. Tho magistrate said that on the evidence it was impossible for him to hold that the horse was mischievous or had vicious propensities and that it was improper to drive it alone a public hichwnv. Ip bin opinion, the tank an? nlaintiff's contributory neMieence in trying to rush past close to the horse caused the hor«c to shy and resulted in the collision. J'KVment would be for defendants with £3 3s costs. JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASES. Orders were made in the following judgment summons cases, • the warrants being subject to various terms of suspension provided certain amounts were paid off tho debts :—Auckland Meat Co., Ltd.. v. E. Jules T,e Scelle, Devonport, £4 13« 2d : Auckland Boilermakers' Union v. F. Carter, Ponsnnbv, 10s: L. Johnston v. J. Soronson, Parnell. £3 ss; O. M. Johnston v. Francis McDermott, Epsom, £5 3s 6d.