Hearing Concluded

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 84, 14 August 1923, Page 7

Hearing Concluded

MOTOR COLLISION CASE. EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL. Hearing of the motor collision ease of Keighley (Mr N. H. Moss) v. Klecman and Bishop (Mr Coleman) was brought to a conclusion at Mon- ' day's sitting of the Magistrate';'; ■ Court. The Bench intimated to Mr Mos,? that he had no desire to visit the scene of the accident, on counsel stating that they did not specially desire he should. Mr Moss appl'ed for leave to call rebutting evidence, loavo to so apply having been granted at the conclusion of Keighley',* case. Mr Coleman objecte.l. Pie also s;ii(l that if the leave was given he should surely have the right to call evidence in rebuttal of Mr Mosss' rebutting evidence. Mr Mowletn, S.M., smilingly re-

I marked that there would have to be sonic limit in the matter. Mr Moss said he desired to have further evidence from Mr J. W. (Spence regarding the two skid-ma;ks which were the basis of Mr Coleman's case. These marks we-'O not mentioned until Mr O leman's ease was in progress, and he (Mr Moss) could not lead evidence in anticipation of evidence to be given later. Mr Coleman said that when Mr I Spence was in the witness box Mr I Moss had fully questioned him as to I whether or not he had seen anyj thing in the shape of skid-marks, j ! Counsel contended that if Mr Spence was recalled he would like to havs the right to ask him questions in reference to various phases of the i-.k'd-marks. i The S.M. said tho cross-examina-1 tion must be confined. , Mr Coleman said such a course would put his clients to a great disadvantage. If Mr 8-enoe went into tho witness-box the end of justice could only be met if he was asked questions dealing with the whole mat-

t-er of tlio skid-marks. Mr Moss said Mr Coleman claimed that the skid-marks were part of his case. Mr Spence had not marked them on his plan, and was able to explain why he had not don e so. Mr Coleman claimed the right to recall his witness Sullivan, to give expert evidence on tar-sealing. Also, if Mr Spence went into the box counsel thought lie should have the right to question him as regards state-

ments to a third party about the skid-marks. Finally, the Court decided to recall Mr Spence. The S.M. (to Mr Spence); When did you prepare your plan.—On the day after the accident. Does the plan contain everything you saw on the ground that could hayf) reference to the.se proceedings. —Yos, so far a.s I could connect them with this case. There seems to be a confusion in reference, to some of

the red marks.) I saw stones bruised with a brown-red mark on tliem, but those marks could have b?cn made by anything and T did not put them on my plan. The B.M. produced witness Sullivan's plan and asked: Look at this plan. There are two parallel black marks loading from the side of the poad to the site of plaintiff's car. Why have you not got them on your plan.—Several marks woe pointed out to mo by people on the ground which appeared to them at first sight to he -Add marks. I carefully examined the mad for clrirl-mnrlra I

came to the conclusion that the marks indicated were not skid-marks but that they had been made by tho tar-sprayer when the road was' being coated with tar. In cross-examination Mr Coleman asked witness how tho marks had been made. Witness said the tar came out of the sprayer through very small hblos which oould be blocked up by very small objects. If one or two holes were so close the effect would bo to produce ridges of leaving coating with blank spaces between. Mr Coleman: If the marks were visible on the Sunday would they n ot be visible at a much later day?' Witness; You would dot see them on a dry day. They can bo seen when tho road iy damp. Counsel then addressed the Court on questions of law. Decision was reserved.