MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18592, 28 June 1922, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, June 27. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Undefended Cases.—Judgment was given by default in the following undefended cases: —Violet Morton v James Martin, claim £8 18s 6d for groceries, and costs (£1 10s 6d); Simon Bros. v. James Wright (Ofcurehua), claim £2 18s 6d for footwear, and costs (£1 6s 6dj; James Wren and Oo v. Frank Brian (Waimate), claim £9 14s 6d, and costs (16s); Arthur A. Paape v. W. J. Galbraith (Hampden), claim £1 4s for whisky supplied, and costs (8s); George Muirhead Torrance v. John M'Keohnie, claim £ls, money lent, and costs (£2 14s). A Motor Collision.—The hearing of the adjourned case, in which James Black claimed from Frederick George Duncan the sum of £7 2s 6d, general and special damages for injury alleged to be caused by negligent and unskilful driving in Princes street on February 10 last was continued Defendant counter-claimed for £9 15s on similar grounds. —3Mr Callan resumed his cross-examination ot the Duncan, after which Mr Hay, re-examined.— William Thom, foreman at Cosscns and Black’s, said defendant’s oar had been brought in on February 11 for repairs to a mudguard. It had received a fairly severe blow, and he estimated that the motor cycle must have been travelling at 15 or 20 miles an hour at the time of the collision. The car was sent over to Farra Bros, for repair to the mudguard, and on Monday morning it was brought back again with a broken spring. To Mr Callan: A new spring had been fitted in. It was hard to say whether the collision had broken the spring or not. —John Edward Wheeler, of Farra Bros., gave evidence as to the damage done to defendant’s car. He had called defendant’s attention on the Saturday to the fact that there was something wrong with the spring.—The • Court inspected Mr Duncan’s car, after which counsel both briefly addressed the Court —Mr Bartholomew remarked that there should have been an inquest if the complainant had been travelling at 20 miles an hour as stated. In giving judgment, he said that as usual in such cases the accounts of the principal parties had to be accepted 'with some reserve. Plaintiff’s case was based on the grounds that defendant was on the wrong side of Jetty street, and that he pulled up after getting into Princes street. But the plaintiff. on his own showing, saw the defendant in ample time to have avoided a collision, and the position of the motor car as it came out of Jetty street was not what caused the accident. If complainant had been travelling at a reasonable rate he should have had his cycle sufficiently under control to be able to meet the position. He wpuld therefore give judgment for the defendant on the claim. With regard to the counter-claim, if he accepted Mr Duncan’s evidence, he would be entitled to recover, but he thought Mr Duncan must be under some confusion. Another man of greater skill or judgment than Mr Black might have avoided the accident, but he did not think he bail been negligent. Defendant would therefore be non-sruited on the coun-ter-claim, and ouch of the parties left to pay his own costa.