MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20800, 20 August 1929, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Mo.xday, August 19. (Before Mr J. K. Bartholomew, S.M.) A CLAIM TOR DAMAGES. Robert William Gosdon, an engineer, of Waipori Falls, claimed £134 8s 8d from Archibald Brown, of Berwick, bus proprietor.—Mr R. S. Anderson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. M. Paterson lor the defendant.—The ease for the plaintiff was that he was driving along tho Bcrwick-Waipori road towards the falls, when a large motor bus, driven by the defendant, collided with his car. It was not suggested that cither vehicle was travelling at an excessive speed, but it was claimed that the defendant bad shown negligence in failing to keep a proper look out. Owing to the state of the road, it w f aa contended, that the defendant had negligently driven his cor in the centre of the road, and had not taken reasonable precaution to avoid the accident. —The plaintiff, Robert William Gosden, gave evidence in support of his claim, and evidence of a corroborative nature was given by Arthur Edmund Gosdon, a brother of the plaintiff, who was a passenger in the car with him, by Robert Macdonald M'Gowan, an employee at the Waipori power station. Arthur Thomas bteven, and Herbert Robert Wright, passengers in the defendant's bus. Expert evidence was given by H. L. Paterson and Kenneth James Lindsay.—At the conclusion of the case for the plaintiff, Mr J. M. Paterson submitted that no negligence had been proved, and that he was entitled to a nonsuit.—-The magistrate said that he would not grant a nonsuit, as the defendant would have to show why he had not swung out to the left-hand side of the road in order to avoid a collision.—After expert evidence for the defence had been given by C. J. Lowry, the defendant. Archibald Brown, maintained that Goshen was travelling at an excessive speed. The witness said he drove in the centre of tho road, and did not leave it until obliged to do so by an approaching vehicle. Robert John Smith, John Brown, Thomas Robertson, and John Fraser gave evidence in support of the contention that the plaintiff's speed was excessive.—The magistrate said that the statements made uy the witnesses for the defence were contradictory, and much of their evidence was worthless. On the other baud, the plaintiff’s evidence seemed reasonable and was supported by several witnesses, whose statements he saw no reason to doubt. The surveyor’s plan, however, had served to fix the locality of the collision, on the plaintiffs correct aide of the road.— Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £lOl 10s 2d with costs (£2O 12s 3d).