BULLS COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXII, Issue 8998, 9 November 1907, Page 2

BULLS COURT.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

At Bulls Court yesterday, before Mr Sauford, S.M., "Dr. F. J. Watson claimed £3l damages from Charles Gascoigne, live-stock dealer, Palmorston North. The claim was for injury to dog cart (£ll ss), and general damages caused by its overturning on the Bulls bridge through the alleged negligonco of dofendaut and his assistants in driving across the bridge a mob of cattle without giving any previous warning of their approach. Mv Bishop (Marton) appeared for plaintiff and:] Mr Gifford-Monrc (Paliuerstoii) tor defendant. Mr Bishop, in opening the case, said that on 2-1 th Juno last Dr. Watson was driving across the ;Bulls bridge, from the eastern side with a tired horse. When lie was more than half way over a number of cattle were rushed on the bridge from the western end. A trap in front of plaintiff's managed to get through them without mishap, but the doctor's dog cart was upset and badly damaged. Ho maintained that reasonable precaution had not been taken by defendant, and ho was therefore liable for the damage. Dr. F. J. Watson said ho was driving with his groom and was more riiaii half wcy over the bridge when he 'first' saw 'the cattle. . '.there was' a trap ahead of 'him and lie hurried alomr so us' to mako one crossing,"'but' ho did not succeed. Tlia cattle were being forced on, and hja groom got out and held the horse.' Owing to the narrowness of the bridge there was no opportunity of returning , cattle bunched romd the trap nad it was"soon overturned. Tl'o was --.or very clear what harnv-iicd' after (ins. as Jig . iQuud himself on his hack on the bridge decking. The ca'.tle were distinctly rushed on to the bridge, and there <v:>s 'Kihodv in front of them. The /■est >)f repairs 10 tlh; trap amounted to the sum claimed, Komeiv.'pefed defendant calling out to' stand still, but he was already doing that. To ?Jr Gifford" Moore : Could see the ' whole length of bridge arid the cattle were not'on'the' bridge' when ho (plaintiff} came on ''fill- Moore; Thp other side will swear the cattle were »u tlio hvidgo before you came on. .by. 'w.iffoji ; To the best of my belief tlicv wci'M not on the bridge. Ml' Moore : Is your horse quiet? -Ye, oxcep: lw *B.nW of motor-ears.

'. Mr Mooro ; How many cattle had passed von before the accident happened?—l. should say eight r liart

passed. Mr Moore ; My witnesses will say about -iO had got safely past your trap. Mr Moore : Was it necessary that someone should hold your horse by the head,, notwithstanding the fact that the man in front of you did not require to do so. Dr. Watson: Yes.

Mr Moore: Do you not think that vour groom standing in front of the hoi'fce and that the flicking of your whip hail something to do in pre vending the cattle passing yon? Dr. Watson :So, I do not think so. Mr Moore : "Would not' the flicking of your whip make the horse play up. Dr. Watson: No, Mr Moore: Do you suggest that defendant had no right, on the bridge. Dr. YVatsou: If a trap is on the bridge 1 don't think bullocks should be driven on. Mr Moore: Then you think a man ■with bullocks lias a less right than a man with a horse and trap. Suppose you had met a motor-car? what would you have done. Dr. Watson: If there was any (longer a motor-car would back off the bridge again. Mi- Moore:"'You coo Id have taken your hor.se out? ' ' I)i\ Watson: We had no time to do that.

■■ Evidence given by A. Green (groom), F. J. Gabites and A. K. Drew (Manawatu County Clerk) wont to show that tho cattle were diiven on the bridge after Dr. Watson was moie thau half way across. The whole mob seemed i.o be very wild. A. K.' Drew said ho was about four chains from ;tho Bulls end of she bridge when tho cattle passed him and Dr. Watson was about a chain behind. The length of the bridge °-,vas stated to bo ''J!'7 feet. The cattle were not under proper control when they cams on the bridge. Mr Bishop called J. E. Walker and T. King, members of Bulls Town Board, who deposed that tho bridge was 1700 feet long. This was done to verify the statement that plaintiff was more than half way across the bridge when the cattle appeared. G. D. Flower, coachbuilder, said tiie damage to tap as assessed was not excessive.

Mr Gifi'ord'Moovo said tho position in this case ws=s that tho bridge w?s a public highway and both parties in the case were lawfully using it. Tijafc ltjing bo ilie onus was on plain; tiff to demonstrate there was negligence in the handling of those cattle and that tho accident" occurred through such negligenco. No doubt Dr. Watson thong! l .t that defendant bad no right to drive cattle over the bridge at that time, but he had as much right to enter one end of the bridge as plaintiff had to enter upon tho other end. There was no by-law preventing this being done. Ho asked for a non-suit, without calling evidence for tho defence.

Mr Bishop argued that defendant had not taken reasonable) precaution and negligence had been proved. His Worship said ho was satisfied from tho evidence already given that there was no proof whatever of neglir gonee. Both parties had. .an entirely equal right to use a public highway. It was a matter for the Local Bodies to make provision to stop cattle going on a bridge when a vehiclo was corning over. . At present there was no by-law and plaintiff would be non-suited, with costs. There is a probability, in the interests of public safety, of the case being taken to the Supreme Court for a definite ruling.