DAMAGES AWARDED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20968, 3 September 1931, Page 11

DAMAGES AWARDED.

INJURY TO A FISHERMAN.

SEQUEL TO MOTOR ACCIDENT.

[FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Wednesday.

Loss of employment' and an injury received as the result of an accident arising out of the. alleged negligence of defendant while driving a motor-car on the Te Mata Road, near Raglan, on June 15. formed the grounds for a. claim for £69 12s damages brought by Harry Roy Hyde, labourer, of Frankton, against William Soper, fishmonger, of Fraakton, in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court. Mr. P. H. Watts appeared for plaintiff and Mr. A. L. Tompkins for defendant. In evidence, plaintiff stated that prior to the accident he entered into an arrangement with defendant whereby the latter was to supply all gear for fishing operations, witness to be paid for the fish caught. It was while returning to Hamilton that, the accident occurred. Soper was driving the car too fast and it skidded when approaching a bridge, crashing into the structure. Witness received head injuries, as a result of which he suffered periodically from dizziness and headaches.

Shortly afterwards, continued plaintiff, when he intimated to defendant his willingness to resume work, Soper told him he did not. want to risk complications setting in. Defendant later told him it would pay to reimburse witness to the extent of £4 or £5 a week and pay all expenses, but he did not carry this into effect. For the defence it was contended that the amount of damages claimed was excessive, that visibility was bad at the time of the accident, that there was loose metal on the road, and that there was no negligence on the part of defendant^. In evidence defendant stated that under the arrangement entered into with plaintiff witness had to supply the gear, plaintiff to receive a third of the fish caught. Dr. E. C. Brewis, who had examined plaintiff, said a test for dizziness had failed to show that Hyde was subject to fits as alleged. In giving judgment for plaintiff for £l4 13s damages, with £4 17s costs, the magistrate, Mr. Wyvern Wilson, said he preferred the story of defendant to that of plaintiff as far'as the fishing transaction was concerned. He considered the accident, however, was due to defendant's negligence.