MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15706, 7 March 1913, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, Mabch 6. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:—Hondai-Lanka Tea Co. v. Abel Thompson (Abbotsford), ■claim of ,16s Bd, for tea (costs 9s); same, v. Alexander Herbert (Heriot), claim of £1, for goods (costs 13s); J. and J. Arthur v. Matthew Andrews (Abbotsford), claim of £3 9s, on an account agreed upon (costs lis); Nimmo and Blair y. Thomson Bros. (Lovell's Flat), claim of £12 3s 4d, for seeds supplied (oosts 30s 6d); James Wren (Ltd.) v. William Woods (Maori Hill), claim of £4, for goods (costs 7s); Dawson and Co. (Ltd.) v. Sydney Keirney (Kaikorai), claim of £3 17s. for jewellery (costs 10s); HondaiLanka Tea Co. v. J. Enright (Peninsula), claim of 15s, for goods (costs 9s); Gordon ajid Gotch Proprietary Co. v. J. Bell (Invercargill), claim of £16 12s 6d, for periodicals, eta (oosts 30s 6d); The Dresden Piano Co. v. Joseph Wilson (Kelso), claim of £16 17s 2d, balance due in connection with the hire of a piano (costa 33s 6d); Laidlaw and Gray v. Arthur Guy, claim of ss, on an account agreed upon (costs ss); James Bain v. D. Field (Green Island), claim of £3 15s, balance for goods (costs 13s). Alfred Hetherington v. Frederick Symonds (Kensington).—Claim £60, for damages, the statement of claim setting out that on the 2nd February, defendant had negligently and unskilfully driven and managed a motor ear in Dayid street, Dunedin, and the car had been driven against cud. had struck plaintiff, greatljs injuring him, and causing Him great pain.—Mr Fraser, K.C., appeared for plaintiff and Mr B. S. Irwin for defendant.—Mt Fraser said that the accident in question had t-aken placo in David street, connecting Forbury ooroer with the Main South road. The street is a most dangerous one for motor or for any traffic, and was only a shade over 27 feet wide. Counsel suggested that on such a road it was incumbent upon a motor car driver to excrciso a greater degree of care than tho driver of an ordinary horeo-drawn vehicle. With a motor car there was practically a ton of metal impelled from within tho car, and on 6harp corncrs such a vehicle driven carelessly borame a modern juggernaut. It was gross negligence for a driver to exceed seven or eight miles an hour \ipon that road. Ou the day in question the plaintiff, who was a lad not 10 years of ago and delicate, was bicycle-riding with Ids cousin in the direction of the Caversham Church from Kew. He was following his cousin, and was on his right side. Defendant was driving wholly on his wrong side, and the cousin would Bay that his car was going fully 20 miles an hour. There was no doubt _ that defendant was well on his wrong side. He was keeping right, in tho centre of the road, over the tramlines, and tho car struck the boy. That defendant had swept over to his right side suddenly was proved by the marks left on the road. It was the back of tho car that struck the boy, and ho received very serious injuries, from which he had not recovered. Defendant had gone to tho house whero tho boy was and had been there asked to contribute towards the medical expenses, but had declined to make any contribution. To remedy tile evil done would have cost £10, but the boy's mouth would never be the eame as it was before—Evidence was given by Dr Scenhouse, Howard Dodgshun (dentist), Frank Martin, Majy Ann Galbraith, Margaret Jenkins, William Shearer, W. H. Mills, and George Wm. Hilton.—Plaintiff gave his ago as 13 years, and said he was riding steadily up the left hand side of tho road. He did not see any motor car. It came on top of him before he knew where he was. He remembered nothing about the accident until ho recovered.—-Evidence was also given by plaintiff's father, Christopher Hetherington, who said his son had been in bed for 11 days as a result of tho accident, and was not yet right.—Mr Irwin Eaid that even at that stage of the case the 'evidence for tho plaintiff did not make out a case of negligence against defendant. On the contrary, if a reasonable view was taken of tho evidence of even plaintiff's witnesses the court would come to the conclusion on their evidence alone that defendant was not guilty of any negligence. The evidence of Frank Martin, cousin of the boy, should be wholly disregarded because ho had sworn to a fact about which there could be no mistake. Counsel went on to criticise the evidence and pointed out discrepancies between the evidence of one witness and the evidence of another. He intended to call certain witnesses who had been present when the accident happened, and he thought they would satisfy the court that what happened was not what had been stated. Symonds was driving visitors in his car, and was not only anxious to avoid meeting with any acoident, but was driving along the street at quite a slow pace —he was. paid by the hour, and rushing would be against him. This boy was gotting all over the road, and as a matter of fact had not struck the car at oil. His bicycle struck the car, and tho bov fell off. There were two cyclists following along tho road, and both would fay that the boy was entirely to blame, that Symonds did all he could to avoid a collision, and pulled right on to the gutter in order to avoid it. When tho boy fell off his bicycle struck the motor car. There would also be other evidence;— Defendant, in the course of his evidence, said he meo a boy wobbling about.. on a bicycle very badly, and ho (witness) pulled his car right into the gutter. Oust when the boy got past the front of the car his bicycle skidded on the tramlino and came almost square across the road at the back of the car. The bicycle wheel caught the tramrail, and the bicyclo struck the car, but tho boy was never on it. He was never on tho car. —Norman Murie and Leonard Wvnn also gave evidence, tho latter stating that tho boy appeared to got frightened, and turned his bicycle into the middle of the motor car, and the driver of the car turned his car away towards the gutter to avoid tho boy.—Other witnesses called were Harriet Nelson, Edith Hamilton, and Grace Bruce. —At 6 p.m. tho case was adjourned to a future date to permit of his Worship seeing the locality where tho accident had happened.