SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19240, 2 August 1924, Page 7

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

CLAIM LOR DAMAGES. A QUESTION OF SPEED. A sequel to a collision between a motor ear and a motor cycle in King street on Juno ?,1 last, was heard before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, when David Hors burgh, of Morven. proceeded against August Do Beer, indent agent, Dunedin, claiming tho sum of £2O damage's and £lO special damages for the defendant’s alleged negligent and unskilful driving and management of a motor car whereby a collision occurred between tho motor car and tho motor cycle driven by plaintiff. Defendant counter-claimed for tho sum of £l2 10s. being the costs of repairs necessary to defendant’s ear through the alleged negligence of plaintiff when riding a motor cycle. Air B. S. Irwin appeared f <fr plaintiff, and Air W. L. Moore for defendant. Plaintiff stated that on June 21 be arrived in Dunedin from Morven, accompanied by a Air Bowie. Witness and his friend were riding south along King street, witness being in the lead. When approaching the hospital gates witness saw two cars coming north, defendant’s car being in the rear. When within a few yard,from tho gate defendant turned in towards the gate, and witness had to swerve outwards, but. his front wheel struck the rear wheel of the car. Witness had seen no signal to indieale that defendant was going to turn. After the collision defendant asked witness for his name, and said he would do nothing to assist as it was his (witness’s) fault. A bystander asked defendant why he did not. give some indication when he was turning, and defendant had replied that he did not think he should have done so. To Air Alo-ore, witness said he was driving at about five or six miles an hour. He would deny that, defendant blew his horn or put out his hand. He would also deny that ho told defendant his breaks would not work. James Bowie, Robert Tnrnbell, and Chas. Gardiner gave corroborative evidence. Lancelot. Graham, motor engineer, gave evidence in regard to the damage done to the cycle. AD Aloore said defendant was driving a patient to the hospital on jtho day in question, and was particularly careful. When he came to the turn at the hospital gates ho sounded his horn and put out his hand. If plaintiff*were at tho speed ho alleged ho should have got past tho car before it reached the gates. Defendant said he w as travelling at about six miles an hour, and as bo turned in towards the hospital he sounded his horn anj held out his hand. He did not see another ear in front of him, nor did he see plaintiff until he w-as close beside him. Ho would say plaintiff was travelling from 20 to 25 miles an hour. The Magistrate remarked when the next witness gave tho same estimation of tho speed, that it wa.s an utter absurdity to say that a man travelling at g 5 miles an hour could strike an obstacle and yet come through scathlcss. Mr Aloore said he intended to bring further evidence on that point. Tho Magistrate: That is my ruling. Mr Mooro, and 1 could not let such a thing go without protest. ATr Aloore: I can bring export witnesses. Tho Alagistrate (heatedly): I don’t care if yon bring a thousand exports I still say that tho contention is absurd, and it is contrary to nl! common sense. Mr Aloore : A man could still retain his seat if ho struck an object while travelling at 25 miles an hour. The Alagistrate: A hodv can’t travel through the air at 25 miles an ( hour and shrike another body without 'something happening. Air Aloore: I want to know, sir. if you will nominate an independent garage expert. The Alagistrate; What for? Mr Aloore: To prove mv point. Tho Magistrate: You can get Professor Jack or anvone else yon wish, but I say its absurd. Try it yoursolf, Air Aloore. You walk into a'wall and* see what will happen. ATr Moore; I would hurt myself. Mr Moore then asked for an adjournment In order to bring further evidence. The magistrate accordingly adjourned tho case sine die.