MOTOR-CYCLES COLLIDE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21498, 23 May 1933, Page 12

MOTOR-CYCLES COLLIDE

SEQUEL IN THE COURT DAMAGES CLAIM FAILS " The entire ease revolves around the question whether defendant's machine carried a light that would give reasonable indication of his presence on the road," said Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., at the Otahuhu Magistrate's Court yesterday, when an action for damages was heard in connection with a motorcycle collision over a year ago. The action was brought by Robert George Coulter, a labourer, of "Whitford, who sought to recover the sum of £149 from James Anderson Pender, of Green Lane. The motor-cycles ridden by the parties violently collided at the intersection of Church Street and Great South Road, near Penrose, on May 7, 1932. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was travelling at an excessivo speed and with practically 110 lights at the time. Mr. R. W. F. Wood represented plaintiff, and Mr. .T. F. W. Dickson appeared for defendant. Plaintiff said he was riding out of Church Street about 7 p.m. The night was very dark, and, after allowing two cars to pass, ho turned into the South Road toward Otahuhu. "When over tho centre lino ho was suddenly struck by defendant's cycle and was severely injured. He lost eight weeks' work and his machine was extensively damaged. Ho.Was convinced that defendant's motorfcyclo had no light. Constable L. Nicol gave evidence of his visit to the scene within a short time of tho accident. Ho found both men lying helpless on tho roadway, defendant being unconscious and bleeding profusely. Plaintiff's cycle lights were in good working order. The lamp on defendant's machine was out, but was still warm. Tho collision seemed to have occurred on defendant's side of the road. Defendant said he used an acetylene lamp for fully 12 months before the accident. It was a good light, although a tip of the jet was broken off. He did not remember anything after passing through Otahuhu, when his lamp was in good order.

A motorist and a bus-driver gave evidence of having observed defendant's light showing clearly on the highway before the collision. The magistrate said it was unfortunate that both parties were not in a position to remember what actually happened. Plaintiff had said he could have seen a lighted cigarette, so dark was the night and the sceno of the collision. That was perhaps an exaggeration and no corroboration was offered. For the defence witnesses had testified that the lamp was in reasonable condition to give sufficient warning of defendant's presence on the road. That it bad been alight was confirmed by evidence of being warm after the collision. Judgment would bo entered for defendant, with costs.