A RACE-DAY ACCIDENT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 826, 3 October 1916, Page 12

A RACE-DAY ACCIDENT.

MOTOR CYCLIST & PEDESTRIAN £IOO DAMAGES AWARDED. The sequel to a. race-day collision between a motor cyclist and pedestrian resulted at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr 11. W. Bishop, S.M., when Alfred Bray (Mr Acland)) claimed from William Alfred Flavell, a draper's assistant (Mr Thomas), the sum of £l4O 10/-, as damages, as tho result of injuries received through being run over by defendant. Alfred Bray, the plaintiff, an aeratedwater manufacturer at Ashburton, said he attended the races at Plumpton Park on June 3. In company with a Mr Andrew Wilkie, he left the course at the end of the last race. Witness was walking partly on the grass on the side of the road and partly on the macadam, and on the left-hand side. There was a fair amount of traffic about. A motor cycle, without warning, struck witness from behind. He was thrown against the side chair and then fell to the ground. The cyclist pulled up about two chains away. The cyclist came 'back, and witness demanded his name land address. The man said, "66 is my I number, that is good enough for you.'' Witness complained to a mounted constable that he was unable to obtain the motor cyclist's name and address. He was in bed nine weeks as a result of the accident. Three years before witness had his kneecap broken, and this again had been injured. It had to date cost between £26 to £27 for wages, owing to his having to employ a man during tho period he was in bed, and he was unable to get about properly yet. To Mr Thomas: He might have been walking five or six yards from tho edge of the road at tho time of the accident. He had had two or three whiskies that day, but was not under the influence of liquor at the time.

Mr Thomas asked that he should be permitted to question the witness regarding previous convictions.. It would possibly affect the credibility of the evidence.

Mr Bishop: I can't allow this at the present stage. The witness, however, intimated he had no objection to this line of questioning. He had been convicted of sly grog-selling about. 12 years ago, and again later on a charge of having used his factory as a place of resort for drinking. Mr Bishop: Well, there is nothing much against you for those which will affect this case.

The evidence of a number of witnesses for the plaintiff had been taken and heard at Ashburton.

Mr Thomas submitted that the plaintiff did not use ordinary care at the tinie of the accident, and no negligence could be attributed to the defendant. It was purely an accident. The defendant said ho came round the coiner, and did not see the plaintiff. His view was obscured by a motor car, and the road was congested. The plaintiff stopped dead, and it was impossible to avoid him by applying the brakes. The man was well out on the road—about 20ft.

Alfred Nixon, the passenger in the side chair, gave similar evidence. The Magistrate said it was clear that the defendant had attempted to pass the car and had showed negligence. Judgment, therefore, would be for £IOO and costs.