MOTORIST SUED.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 137, 16 July 1914, Page 8

MOTORIST SUED.

RAN OVER A GIRL. PLAINTIFF GETS DAMAGES. A -case particularly interesting to motorists, and, indeed, to the general public, came before Mr H. W. S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Iris Olive Stewart (Mr Cassidy)' sued E. A. Broughton, sheep farmer (Mr Beswick), for £45 general damages and £4 15/- special damages. The case was brought as the result of an accident in which defendant in his car collided with plaintiff, whp was riding a bicycle. As a result of the accident, it was claimed plaintiff had been seriously injured and was still ill from shock. Dr Thomas said that on March 8 he examined plaintiff. She was suffering from shock and. was badly bruised. Witness saw her again a few days ago, and she was not yet fit to go to work. It would require a full six months for her to recover entirely. Leslie Hardy, council inspector, saicl he saw the accident. The defendant struck the girl's bicycle about the middle of the front wheel. Defendant did not blow the horn of his car, but looked over 'the side of the car at the girl on the street and then drove on. He would not have stopped if it had not bgen that he ran down a second person. Witness told defendant that if he had done his duty after the first accident he would not have had the second one. The girl had the right of the road, and defendant's plain duty was to have pulled up. He admitted, when asked, that it was his fault, and said that he would see the two people righted. At the time there a hostile crowd round the car. Thomas Hammon, who. was standing on the corner,*of Lower High Street and Madras Street, saw the occurrence. He heard no horn blown. The motorist did not stop. He looked round to see what was happening, and' then ran over another person right in front of witness. The car wasn't going fast—about six miles an hour. Witness had no time to help the girl, because he had to gr> and pull the second victim from under the ear.

Plaintiff, in the witness box, said she saw the car first when it about 4ft from her. She was then almost across High Street. No horn was blown, and the ear went on. Defendant said he would drive her home, but he didn't turn up. Mrs Broughton told her that she (plaintiff) was not mueh hurt. She. also told plaintiff that a case would be brought against Mr Broughton for negligent driving. She advised .plaintiff that all she would have to say was that it was all her own fault*.' Mr Broughton/ had said he would stand all expenses. ' Charlotte Stewart, mother of plaintiff, said that her daughter had never been well since the, accident. When her daughter had been brought home she was just drdpped in the street outside the door, and neitheT defendant nor his wife came to with her.' Defendant wrote to witness in answer to a letter of hers, and said that lie was surprised at the attitude she was adopting, as tho girl had admitted it was her fault. THE DEFENDANT'S STQRY.

Edward' Alfred Broughton, defendant, gave his version of the accident. He was going at a walking pace at the time - l and at a chain from the corner he blew his horn. He first saw the girl at about - three yards from the car. He was watching closely as he drove round. He swerved " to the left when he*saw plaintiff. The girl struck his front wheel. Defendant's wife looked round at the girl and said, '' She is apparently not hurt.'' "You did sound your horn?" asked

Mr Beswick. '' Yes," answered defendant. "It's almost second nature to sound .the horn, I suppose,'' said Mr Beswick. "I wish it was," said Mr Bishop tersely* Defendant refused to give his name to the inspector at ftsst. "Why did you do that-?'' asked Mr Bishop, "were you ashamed of it?" "My.number was osl my car," said defendant. "Did not the inspector climb into the car ?'' asked Mr Cassidy. • 4 He might have done.'' "Did you pay the other man on a threat from Dougall and TJpham?" asked Mr Cassidy.

"I paid him," said defendant. "Did your wife say that the girl asas not hurt?" • "Yes, she did. That's right.", •'How did she know? " '• Well, she saw that the girlwas not killed." "Oh," said Mr CJassidy. "you only stop if you kill someone?'' '' Certainly not, *'' said defendant. '' That *s enough.'' said Mr Cassidy. Jean Broughton, wife of'.the defendant, said that when she took the girl home she seemed very gTateful and said it was her own fault. Witness had told, her to say that it was her own fault if Mr Broughton was brought to Court. Mi Broughton had never said that he was responsible. Some of the cro'-vd had congratulated him. "What was the girl grateful fori asked Mr Cassidy. "Not being killed?" suggested Mr Bishop. "Yes, not being killed," said witness. ' '.You told the girl that she was to say it was her own fa*ilt," asked Mr Cassidy. "Yes, I did," assented witness. "Why didn't you stop at the corner where you knocked the girl down?" "I don't know, I wasn't driving, said witness." '' It, 's always the bieyle that runs into the car?" suggested Mr Cassidj. < ' l't was this time, 7 ' agreed witness. '' The car never runs into the bicvcle?" said Mr Cassidy. '''Not in Court actions," said the Magistrate. 44 You've no witnesses as to fact? Mr Bishop asked Mr Beswick. '' No, your Worship.'' '' Not even those persons who. congratulated defendant after the accident?" "No," said Mr Beswick. "Fortunately," said Mr Bishop, "the Court is assisted in coming to a decisioa in this case by the evidence of a. disinterested and experienced witness who v/as in an excellent position to see the accident. His evidence is quite enough for me." Judgment was given for plaintiff for ££o and' costs.