THE MOTOR SMASH.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume V, Issue 1339, 29 May 1918, Page 6

THE MOTOR SMASH.

£265 AWARDED. AGAINST DRIVER ONLY. Judgment was given late last evening in the Supremo Court by his Honour Mr Justice Herdman, fiiul a jury of twelve hi the ease in which Thomas Belworthy, a cycle mechanic, New Brighton, claimed as the result of a collision £IOOO as general damages, and £OS .12/5 special hospital expenses from Henry Frances Stevens, druggist, New Brighton, and Frank Sedgcwiek Stevens, his sou. Judgment was given for £2OO general damages and £65 .12/5 expenses against the driver of the car, Frank Sedgewick Slovens, who is a minor at law. The jury retired at 4.2S p.m., and returned at 8.35 p.m., the foreman asking for information respecting an issue as I they were unable to come to any decision as to the culpability of IT. F. 'Stevens. After further explanation, | the jury retired at 5.54 p.m., his TTonour intimating that he could now take a three-fourths majority verdict. I At 0.11 p.m. the jury returned with the following answers to the issues;— 1. Was the defendant Frank S. Stevens driving the motor-car at the time of the accident as his: father's agent or servant?— No. 2. Was the defendant Frank S. Stevens guilty of negligence contributing to the accident?—-Yes. ,'l. Was the plaintiff guilty of negligence contributing to the accident?— Yes. 4. Tf "yes,'' could the defendant Prank S. Stevens, Ivy the exercise of reasonable care and caution, have avoided the accident?— Yes. 5. AVas the said Frank S. Stevens a fit and proper person to be allowed to drive a motor-car? —Yes. 6. If "no," was the said Henry F. Stevens negligent in allowing his son to drive fie said motor-car?— No. 7. Were the lights of the said motorcar insufficient to the knowledge of the defendant Henry F. Stevens when the motor-car left his house?—No answer returned. 8. Tf "yes," was the said Henry F. Stevens negligent in allowing his son to drive the said motor-car with insufficient lights?—No answer returned. 9. Damages (if any)—£2oo general damages, and £OS 12/5 hospital expenses. Tn reply to his Honour, the foreman stated that the answers to issues 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 were unanimous; and issues 5 and 6 were arrived at by a threefourths majority. After hearing counsel, his Honour entered judgment against Frank Sedgewick Stevens for £2OO and hospital expenses, with costs according to scale, and judgment for the defendant, Henry Frances Stevens, with costs according to scale. The question of IT. T. Stevens's costs was reserved.