Page 17 Advertisements Column 2

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19015, 10 November 1923, Page 17

Counsel for both sides having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up. Ho said they may have a collision where both sides were negligent; secondly, there may ho a case where one parly only was to blame; and, thirdly, there may bo a case where both aides were to blame. In such a ease the jury would have a difficulty in deciding. ff the jury thougiu that defendant properly ’ thought that tho lad was coming on to Outran), and did not realise that he intended proceeding into Gladstone road they would very properly bo justified in finding for the defendant. If the jury thought that plaintiff was really responsible for the collision (hen he was not entitled to recover. If they came to the conclusion that defendant was to blame for the accident they were entitled to grant, substantial damages. The plaintiff was suffering from the effects of the arcideni. (he worst, feature of which was the restricted ii>c of Jus right arm, and they were entitled to take that into consideration. Hut before they could consider the question of damages they had to decide that tho defendant was the direct .and effective cause of the misfortune. The jury after a retirement of 30 minutes returned with a verdict for plaintiff. They assessed the .special damages at. £35 16s Od, and general damages at £125, a total of £159 15s 6<l. His Honor gave judgment for this amount, costs according to scale, and disbursements to bo fixed by_ the registrar. • The court adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Monday.