MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23672, 2 December 1938, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, December 1 : (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Undefended Cases Judgment for the plaintiffs was given in the following undefended cases:—Commissioner of Taxes v. Ronald Charles Blackmdre, claim £4 9s Bd, for income tax, with costs (9s); Commissioner of Taxes v. Percy Herman Urquhart, claim £5 6s 2d, for income ta with costs (16s); Ernest Jensen Stewart v. Herbert Anderson, claim £6 3s 3d, for goods supplied, with costs (£ 1 14s 6d); Sun Insurance Office, Limited v. E. H. Crawford, claim £lO 17s lid, for premiums owing, with costs (£2 15s); Turnbull and Jones, Ltd. v. Alexander Miller (Brighton), claim £4 5s 9d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 5s 6d); Para Rubber Company v. A. Butler (Balclutha), claim £l6 Is 3d, for balance owing on goods supplied, with costs (£2 14s).

Plaintiff’s Case Succeeds

Arising out of collision on the Dunedin-Christchurch main highway at Winchester on July 17, 1937, James Smith, farmer, of Hillend, claimed from Harold Banks, secondhand dealer, of Dunedin, the sum of £llO Os 2d for damages—£7o Os 2d for repairs to the plaintiff’s car, £25 for depreciation, and £ls fo: the loss of use of the vehicle. —The defendant made a counter-claim for £69 10s 4d, for damages caused through the nlaintiff’s alleged negligence.—Mr E. J. Anderson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. B. Deaker for the defendant. —The statement of claim sta ;d that on July 17, 1937, the plaintiff was driving his motor car on the main north road at Winchester in a northerly direction towards Orari, and at the same time a motor car owned and driven by the defendant was proceeding in a southerly direction on the main road. It was alleged that the defendant’s car, while negotiating the corner on the main road, was so negligently and unskilfully driven that it coilided with that driven by the plaintiff. The statement alleged that the defendant wasOnegligent in failing to keep a proper look-out; in failing to keep as far as possible to the left of the centre line of the road; in failing, when negotiating a bend towards the south on to a bitumen road with straight-through traffic to exercise the necessary care resting upon r under such circumstances; in failing when approaching the corner to give way to the plaintiff’s car approaching from his right-hand side; and in failing to stop or slow down or stee~ clear in sufficient time to avoid a collision. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff claimed £llO Os 2d for damages—£7o 0s 2d for repairs to the plaintiff’s car. £25 fo* depreciation to the vehicle, and £ls for loss of use of it.—Mr Anderson said that the collision took place on the wellknown Winchester corner. He described how the collision occurred, and stated that the corner was one that required great care on behalf of the southbound driver, as there was a big camber on the road and a two-storeyed building obstructed the view to the right of the southbound driver. The plaintiff, he said; had approached the corner at about 20 miles per hour had sounded his horn, and had sienallec. that he was going across to the Orari road The defendant, counsel alleged, had cut the corner, had failed to apply the offside rule, and had not kept a proper look-out for traffic approaching from the right.—Evidence was j given by the plaintiff, Elsie Elizabeth Smith (wife of the plaintiff), j

Annie '' Margaret "Scott i 1: (Oran Bridge), and Percival : George Scott (Orari Bridge).—Mr Deaker contended that the defendant had driven as any norma! man would have done in the circumstances. If the plaintiff had continued straight on towards Orari he would have avoided: the collision. The defendant admitted having turned slightly to the bright to pass round behind the plaintiff’s car. The accident was caused solely by the fatal left-hand swing the plaintiff had made towards Geraldine. Mr Deaker submitted that because of the plaintiffs negligent driving the defendant was entitled to succeed in the counterclaim.—Evidence was then given by the plaintiff, and by his son, John Banks.—The' case really disposed of itself against the defendant by his own evidence, the magistrate said in giving judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant had approached the corner at 30 m.p.H.,: attempted to fly round it, saw the other car 60ft away, and tried to pull round behind it. The whole incident occupied less than a second. It was obvious that the defendant was travelling too fast, and that he had not kept a proper look-out. He had had no business to make the swing to the right. The position was. therefore, that the accident had been brought about entirely bv the wrongful driving of the defendant. The magistrate said that he thought £ls was too much for plaintiff’s loss of use of his car and reduced the claim to £5. judgment thus being for £IOO Os ? 1 with costs (£3), and solicitor’s fee (£6). On the counter-claim, the nlaintiff would be allowed costs (£5), witnesses’ expenses being left to the counsel to*agi*£e on.