MOTOR-CAR AND CAB.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 68, 13 November 1912, Page 6

MOTOR-CAR AND CAB.

THE COLLISION AT HAWERA

CLAIM FOR £59 Is 6d

At the Magistrate’s Court, Hawcra before Mr Kenrick, S.M., yesterday an action was heard,Angus McLeod am William Frederick Dowxnan (both oi Hawera), livery stable keepers, plaintiffs, and William Herbert Rook (oi Stratford), motor car proprietor, defendant, being a claim for damages for £59 Is 6d, alleged to be the result of the plaintiffs’ cab and two horses being run into by defendant’s motor car on the night of October 14th last at the junction of Princes Street and Glover Road, Hawera. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant negligently drove his motor car on the wrong side of the road, at an excessive rate of speed, and in consequence collided with plaintiffs’ cab. Mr Smart (of Barton and Smart, Hawera), appeared for the plaintiffs and. Mr Robert Spence (of Spence and Stanford, Stratford), for defendant. Mr Smart outlined the case for the plaintiffs and pointed out that the damages claimed were on a moderate scale, as plaintiffs’ business bad been seriously disorganised and the two horses to eomo extent rendered useless.

William F. Bowman, one of the plaintiffs, in evidence, stated that lie was driving bis cab from Hawera down to the railway station, and that when he left the stables both lights in the cab were burning; then when coming to the intersection of Princes Si vet and Glover Road he saw the light of defendant’s car some distance vway

coming past the railway station from Stratford. He (Dowman) immediately slackened his pace and drew his cab to bis left hand, or correct, side. Just as ho got to the corner of the two streets the car swung sharply round the corner within a few feet of the cab at a great pace and smashed into him. Cross-examined by Mr Spence, witness admitted that the last time he saw both his lights burning was opposite Symes’ timber yards some distance before the scene of the collisi ni. He also admitted that he was pulling towards his correct side when the collision occurred and that his front wheels were nearer the kerb than the back wheels, i.e., nearer the left-hand kerbing. Plaintiff’s stepson, Alfred George Greening, who was in the cab with the last witness, gave somewhat similar evidence but. thought his father had made one or two slight mistakes in nis evidence. Witness swore that he lit the lamp on the left-hand side of the cab before he left the stables and that lie looked at that lamp to'see if it was still alight three times between the stables and at the time of the collision. He also looked at the lamp on the driver’s side three times before the collision. He‘was quite sure both lamps were burning when the collision took place, and that the lamp On the left-hand side of the cab must have gone out suddenly as a result of the collision.

Henry Faulkner, sexton at Hawera, who was standing at, the corner of Princes Street and Glover Road c>ose to where the collision occurred, gave evidence that he saw the cab coming down Princes Street, and that he noticed that both lamps were alight. He also noticed, a car coming up Glover Road, travelling at about five miles an hour*. The car took the corner very sharply. The cabman was on Ir.s correct side of the road, and ihe car crashed into him. Under cross-examination witness said he did not know what reason he would have for recollecting that there were two lights burning on the cab, but he did recollect it all the same. He was talking to a lady at the corner and he could see along both Glover Road and Princes Street. Although the plaintiff Bowman was on his correct side, he heard him say after the accident that ho (Bowman) was trying to pull to the correct side when the collision occurred.

George Easton, auctioneer, Hawera, deposed that he was walking down the footpath from Hawera to the railway station and when the cab passed him he was sure that it had at least one light burning because the light flashed across the footpath in front of him, and ho was sure the cab was on its correct side of the road, in fact onK five or six foot from the kerbing. To Mr. Spence; The cab must then have been running on the grass. He was not in the habit of going cut at night; hence the reason for.his noticing the light on this occasion. Evidence was also given l*v a surveyor (who made a survey), by a_law clerk (who noticed broken glass from the wind screen, and who took a photograph of the position). A veterinary surgeon also deposed as to the injuries to the horses in the cab.

THE DEFENCE. For the defence, Mr. Spence stated that there would be the usual open and violent conflict of testimony as to the cause of the collision. As a learned Judge had said: “A collision is, as a rule, unexpected and unlcoked for, and the incidents which immediately lead up to it, occupy usually a very small space of time—how small is not al ways, nor easily, appreciated; very often the time is measured in seconds, In that time onlookers have to receive the impression of all they seo or hear, or think they see or hear When called upon to speak to these they have to recall these impressions, and out ol them to reconstruct the scene as they believed they saw it. jt *\as not surprising, therefore to expect most open conflict of testimony in cases of collision, and‘this often from perfectly respectable and truthful witnesses. The defendant, William Herbert Rook, of Stratford, motor-car proprietor stated he drove from Stratford to Hawera., taking an hour and five minutes on the journey. Passing the Hawera railway station he slowed up, the car to five or six miles an hour. The turn into Princes Street was a tricky one. He kept fairly to the centro of the road, and saw no lights coming down Princes Street. If the cab s near light had been burning he must have seen it. When he had just turned into Princes Street the lights of his ,car throw up two horses and a cab in front of him. If he went on to his cor-

rect side of the road be must nave run into the cab. He, therefore, did the safest, and only, thing he could doswerved his car sharply to the right and applied both brakes, bringing up the car in its own length. Simultaneously, however, the cabman turned his horses to got on to his left, or correct side of the road, and ran light on to the car. The polo of the cab went through the- wind screen, striking Captain Lampen severely on the arm, passing by him (witness; and striking jAcut.-Colonel Malone on the face. The car was very badly damaged, but all the damage was on the lett-hand side of the car. If the cab had pulled up there would have been no accident; or if the cab bad gone on without attempting to get to its right side of the road it was not likely there would have been an accident. Immediately arter the accident the cabman said lie was trying to get to his correct s.cle of the road, as be thought the car would run into him if he stayed where ho was. Later on in the evening, when a constable was taking the names of

the two drivers, Bowman said to witness: “There is no need for names; it was a pure accident.’’ Under cross-examination by Mr. Smart, he admitted that ho did not toot his horn before coming to the intersection of the streets. He did not think it necessary, as ho saw nothing in front of him, and had good lights burning and a clear view of Princes Street, and, moreover, was travelling slowly.

Mr. W. G. Malone said that on the evening of the 14th October he was a passenger with Dr. Carhory and Captain Lampen in the defendant’s car. As they were at the corner or cue two streets turning into Hawera, ho suddenly noticed a cab drawn by two horses in front of them, and being about in the middle of the roaa.

[look’s car was taking the corner nornally, as anyone driving round the eerier would take the corner, seeing no-

thing in front. He was surprised to see the cab, as lie saw no lights prior to the cab being thrown up by the

lights of the motor-car. Rook instantly pulled up “all standing.” The driver of tne cab appeared to witnessto pull his horses to the left, right on to tne car. After the accident witness noticed the near side lamp of the cab was not lit. Witness also neard someone, whom he took to be the driver of the cab, say to Rook: “lion were on your wrong side; 1 tried to pull to ihy correct side; 1 thought that if I tried to pull over to my wrong side that you would try to pass on that side.” Rook slowed down when he get to Hawera; and he was not travelling fast. He appeared to have perfect command of nis car; and pulled up, in witness’s opinion, in less'than a car’s length. Dr. Garnery said that he was sitting

in the back seat with'Mr. Malone, and that when they moved into PrincesStreet the car was travelling slowly. He did not see any lights in front of him. The first he knew was a violent collision, and a piece of glass from the wind-screen got into his eye. He attended to Captain . Lampen’s arm, and then noticed the position of the cab and the car—that was, immediately after the accident. Counsel then produced a plan drawn 'by witness, giving witness’s opinion of now the accident happened, from the relative positions of the cab and car after the accident. Captain Dampen, who was sitting in the front seat of the car, stated tiiat the car came down past the railway station in the centre of the metal, and that in taking turn into Princes Street, the car, if anything, took fN wide turn. At the time the horses’

heads were first seen, they would be about fifteen feet from the iront of the car. The cab was on the ceiltre of the road and rilotal: if anything, slightly to its wrong side. Witness was quite confident of this. If the car had gone on its correct side,- it would be difficult to conjecture how serious the accident might have been Upon seeing the horses witness called out to Rook, who instantly swerved to the right, the only course open to him in the circumstances. At the same time Rook

applied his brakes, and the car was practically _at a standstill when the cab, which had also veered to get on to its correct side, crashed into the car. The pole of the cab struck his left arm violently, passed on between himself and the driver to the back seat, striking him he believed (Mr. Malone) on the face. Witness was clearly of opinion (sitting as be was next to Rook) that the latter did the only thing possible in the circumstances.

Mr. Spence did not address the Court again, but Mr. Smart (for the defence) addressed his Worship, contending that the evidence clearly bore out that the defendant Rook was careless in his driving, contrary to the Motor Regulation Act, and that if be had tooted his horn at the corner, the accident would have been averted. His Worship said that although lie knew the corner well, he would have another look at it, compare the evidence of the various witnesses, and give his decision shortly. *