A COLLISION

Southland Times, Issue 20013, 29 October 1926, Page 5

A COLLISION

HEAVY DAMAGES CI Al MED. CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. As the result of an accident that occurred on the North road between Makarewa and Invercargill on Saturday, July 3 about 6.30 p.m., Joseph E. Lea, taxi-proprietor, Invercargill claimed £lBB 0/6 from William Timpany, farmer, Grove Bush. The claim was made up of £65 10/6 for damages to the car, £97 10/- for loss of earnings and £25 general damages. There was also a counterclaim for £5O. The case was heard m the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M. Mr Gordon Reed appeared for the plaintiff and Mr G. Broughton for the defendant. Mr Reed in outlining the case stated that bis client claimed damages caused to ms car through a collision with defendant’s gig on the evening of July 3. There was also a counterclaim from Timpany. The gig was unlighted, as Mrs Timpany, who was driving at the time of the accident, had subsequently been convicted of driving a vehicle without a light. The accident could be fairly stated to have occurred through a drunken man driving on the main road at night without a light for although Mrs Timpany was actually driving at the time, defendant owned the gig and was driving until his incapability made it necessary for his wife to take charge. Joseph Elliott Lea, a taxi-proprietor, Invercargill, stated that he was the owner of a Hudson touring car with which he made his living. He had met with an accident ' with Timpanys on the other side of | Lorne Farm. He had on that afternoon ‘ taken a load of passengers to the hotel, and : Mr Timpany was one of the passengers, i From the hotel he had after six o’clock [ taken one passenger to Makarewa and was ! on his way back when the accident happen- ' cd. He had not drank anything at the , hotel. It was about 6.30 when he was returning after having left his passenger at Makarewa It was pitch dark. He was proceeding on his correct side when he met a car and dimmed his lights. He was well over to his correct side when he saw a horse and gig come across him and heard a woman call out. He at once switched off his ignition and applied the brakes. The crash came, after which he got out of the car and saw a woman standing with a baby in her arms. Timpany came up and asked him what he was doing on the wrong side of the road, to which witness replied he was on the correct side. Witness went to see if the woman and baby were all right. Timpany came up and his wife said to him ; “There you are. I told you what would | happen.” Timpany admitted he had no ; lights. The car was badly damaged and j could not be started. The gig was over- . turned. Witness came in a passing car to , Waikiwi and rang up a constable and a taxi- ! driver. They proceeded to the scene of the accident and after examining the position ' of the car and the gig, went to the store in i search of the Timpanys. The latter were not at the store so they went to their house. Mrs Timpany macle a statement to the constable stating that she was driving the gig and that the car w’as going slowly. Timpany had gone in a car to get the gig, so witness and the constable returned to meet Timpany. They met a ear towing the pig and stopped it. The constable asked for Timpany who vehemently objected to the constable’s having obtained a statement from his wife. The constable accused Timpany of being drunk, but the latter said his companions would swear he was not drunk. They, however, declared that he certainly was not sober. In witness’ opinion defendant was drunk when spoken to immediately after the accident. Witness was travelling at ten or twelve miles an hour when the accident occurred. Witness had suffered severe financial loss owing to the accident. The car was under security to Russell and Co., and witness had to earn £7 a week before he had anything for himself. Witness had not been able to work since the accident, as he was unfit for other service. When cross-examined by Mr Broughton defendant could not explain w r hy his headlights were not on when the accident occurted except to state that the oncoming car had caused him to dim his lights by switching over to his parking lights. William Agnew, of A. Russell and Co., motor dealers, stated that they had a bill of sale over the car which was lying in their garage badly damaged. He detailed the damage done to the car and the estimated cost of repairing it. There was an insurance policy on the car by which the first .£2O was to be paid by the insured. The insurance company had sent his firm a cheque for £4B on condition that in return they received a cheque for £23 for the premium owing on the car. The taxi-driver who took Lea out from Waikiwi to the accident stated that when | he arrived on the scene Lea’s car was well ' over to the east side of the North road j pointing straight down. He had followed I Idea’s tracks with his headlights, and they I could be followed on the correct side of the road to within ten feet of Lea's car when they were obscured by footmarks. Constable Beadle, of Waikiwi, stated that at 7.5 p.m. on July 3 he received a telephone message from Lea that there had been a collision. With McKnight and Lea he had visited the scene of the accident. Lea’s car was on the east side of the road facing south, with the left wheels near the grass. The gig was turned upside down on the ea=t side of the road with the shafts towards the fence. When he saw Timpany later he was decidedly the worse for I’quor. Timpany admitted he had taken liqu< ' er the accident. To Mr Broughton:—He could not say whether Timpany’s condition was due to drink after the accident. He had not examined the tread of the tyre to identify the marks though McKnight had. William Timpany, farmer, Grove Bush, the defendant, said that the horse they were driving was quiet and reliable. On the afternoon of July 3 four passengers including himself had gone in Lea's car to Wallacetown. He had gone to get his gig. The car did not seem to be running well on the way out. AH except one had gone into the Wallacetown hotel. He had a small beer himself. The rest were drinking whisky. When in the bar he had received a message from his wife who had harnessed the horse to the gig and was waiting for him. It would be about 5.25 when he left Wallacetown. He drove for a start. The gig had no lights and when witness went to light a cigarette Mrs Timpany took the reins. They saw two small lights approaching on the wrong side of the road. At first they thought it was a gig but later saw it was a car. They expected the vehicle to pull over to its correct side but it did not do so and struck them. They had pulled up just before the crash and Mrs Timpany had called out in alarm. Lea would be travelling at 10 or 12 miles an hour. Witness explained what had happened at the moment of impact. The horse was practically useless now and the gig needed repairs. Witness had injured his finger and could not work his team. Witness was perfectly sober at the time of the accident but had one whisky afterwards. Lea did not seem to know or see where he was going. To Mr Reed:—Lea did not seem to be able to get speed up going out to WaDacetown. It was about four o’clock when they got to the hotel. Witness had three small beers while Lea was in the hotel. He saw Lea drink whisky. He had two beers after Lea left. After the accident he had a small whisky. Lea was drunk and he, witness, was perfectly sober before the accident, at the time of the accident, and after the acci-» dent. He fixed the hour of his leaving the hotel, 5.25, by the darkness coming on. He considered it safe to go without a light. He drove until he lit a cigarette. Mrs Timpany had a baby three weeks old in her arms. Mrs Timpany considered he was not keeping far enough over on his side of the road so asked him to let her drive. He passed the reins over to her. Annie Timpany, wife of defendant, gave evidence on similar lines to her husband. She considered he was quite sober when he rejoined her though he had had a few drinks. After the accident Lea was wringing his hands and seemed dazed. She would imagine he had been drinking. To Mr Reed:—lt did not take very much drink to upset her husband. Her husband commenced driving but she took the reins uipjj he lit his cigarette. This was their

usual practice. She would not say that Lea was drunk but he was dazed. Thomas Jahn Palmer, a motor mechanic, stated that he had examined Lea’s car. The parking lights were all right but the headlights were not. He could not say whether the headlights were going before the accident. The brakes were in fair order. The parking lights would not be much good to see traffic ahead.

To the Magistrate:—The right hand side of the car had been injured. It was probably a glancing collision. Ernest Stopford, motor inspector, Invercargill stated that Lea had applied for a license to drive in March. The car was in an unsatisfactory condition and witness would not issue a license until the car was repaired in certain respects. By April this had been done and a license was issued. The outer band on the particular car had never been satisfactory. It was a car that needed constant attention. Jean Gilmour, who was in the gig with the Timpanys, at the time of the accident, also gave evidence. She thought that the parking lights of the car were the lights of two cigarettes being smoked by men in a gigTo Mr Reed: —When they got near the light Mrs Timpany wanted the reins and Mr Timpany passed them over to her. The Magistrate said he was quite satisfied that Lea was in the right and Timpany in the wrong. Timpany’s claim would not b? ecuuddered. but it was difficult to assess the ,

amount Lea should recover. He was not going to give judgment for the actual amount of damage until repairs had been effected. The case would be adjourned until these had been carried out. Lea would be allowed £2O for loss of earnings.