SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19558, 10 February 1927, Page 13

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

MOTORISTS IN COURT. MAGISTRATE DEFERS JUDGMENT. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Wednesday. A seouel to a collision between two motor-cars near Otorohanga in January, 1925, was heard yesterday in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court, before Mr. Wy* vera Wilson, S.M., when Eric Innes .Sones, motor proprietor, sued Cowpcr Moore-Jones, of Auckland, for £63 as damages. Defendant counter-claimed for £165 93 sd. Mr. J. F. Strang appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Towle for defendant. According to Mr. Strang, Humphrey Innes Jones, employed by his brother as driver of a service car running between Hamilton and New Plymouth, was rounding a bend near Otorohanga when Moore-Jones' car came round the corner on its wrong side. A collision resulted. The road was 17ft. wide and there should have been no difficulty for the cars to pass. As a result of the collision Mrs. Bedford, of New Plymouth, was injured and had claimed £6O from Innes Jones. The magistrate was asked to assess liability, leaving the amount to be decided later, as ether actions were pending. Written evidence from Mrs. Bedford was read, in which she attributed the accident to defendant being on his wrong side.

Humphrey limes Jones said he was not travelling at more than: 20 miles an hour. Tie sounded his born at every corner. It appeared to him that MooreJones was ■ trying to overtake a car In front of htm.

Further .'evidence ; was .given by passengers in plaintiff's car, all of whom testified that plaintiff was driving carefully and on his correct side. Mr. Towlc submitted for defendant that the collision was .due to the excessive speed of plaintiffs car.

Defendant,. in evidence, stated'' that he. had gone to the right side of the road to overtake. ■ a'. small car- in front, of htm, when plaintiffs car came in sight travelling at a speed which he estimated at 30 to 35 miles an hoar.

The magistrate said the evidence clearly showed thai', plaintiff was driving at a reasonable speed, and that the accident was caused through defendant .being on his wrong side, Entry of judgment was deferred to enable the parties to agree, if possible, as to what damages .plaintiff wes entitled to recover.