STEWARD CLAIMS £157

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 655, 6 May 1929, Page 11

STEWARD CLAIMS £157

ACTION against ferry OWNERS ONEHUNGA ACCIDENT At si* o'clock on June 23, 1928, Arthur Whirnster, a ship's steward, broke his leg as he was alighting from a tramcar in Queen Street, Onehunga. In the Onehunga Magistrate’s Court this morning Whirnster brought an action.tor damages against A. Cameron and W. J. Brain, owners of a motorlorry. which he alleged ran over him. He was represented by Mr. Alan Moody, and claimed JS72 for loss of wages, JLIO for ruined clothing, and £75 special damages. "plaintiff told the court that as he was alighting from the tramcar, defendants’ lurry knocked him down and broke his leg, incapacitating him for four months. His wages were £4 a week, and he was now unable to follow his usual occupation. Cross-examined by Mr. L. P. L.‘.ary, for defendants, the witness admitted having had two pints of beer just before boarding the tram at Arthur Street, Onehunga. He had also made provision for the following day by carrying home a “square-rigger” of beer. He also admitted having alighted from a moving tramcar last Saturday week near the Onehunga post office. The motorman, A. A. Irving, said that he stopped at Captain Street to “ring the clock” there, and did not notice the lorry passing him after he had stopped. He first saw it when it pulled up 50 yards ahead of him. He considered that it passed him before hu stopped the tramcar. HAD TRAM STOPPED? The conductor, M. Langton, did nut see the accident, but subsequently found plaintiff lying in the road at the rear of the tramcar. He did not see the lorry pass after the tram had stopped. Alexander McMaster. aged 10. a boy who was on the footpath, said that he heard a crash, and considered the tram had just stopped when the lorry hit plaintiff. To Mr. Leary: It was dark, and he did not actually plaintiff being knocked down. \V. P. Lockwood, a passenger in the tram, deposed to seeing plaintiff going out at the Captain Street stop, just os the tram was slowing down. The lorry did not pass after the tram had stopped. Plaintiff smelt of drink, but witness would not say that he was drunk. To Mr. Leary: When witness heard the crash, the tramcar was still in motion. In discussing a legal point as to evidence of plaintiff’s sobriety, Mr. Leary indicated to the magistrate, Mr. F. H. Levien, that the defence admitted that plaintiff was not drunk, but that the liquor he had taken immediately prior to the accident had the effect of making him careless in alighting, which amounted to contributory negligence. „ . , ~ The court adjourned to inspect the site of the accident. The Magistrate reserved his decisio.n.