THE MOTOR SMASH.

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

THE MOTOR SMASH.

£265 AWARDED. AGAINST DRIVER ONLY. Judgment was given late last evening in the Supremo Court by his Honour Mr Justice Heniman, and a jury of twelve in the case in which Thomas Belworthy, a cycle mechanic, New Brighton, claimed as the result of a collision £IOOO as general damages, and £(i<s 12/5 special hospital expenses from Henry Frances Stevens, druggist, New Brighton, and Frank Sedgewiek Stevens, his son. Judgment was given for £2OO general damages and £6."> 12/5 expanses against the driver of the car, Frank Sedgewiek Stevens, who is a minor at law. The jury retired at 4.28 p.m., and returned at 8.35 p.m., the foreman asking for information respecting an issue as they were unable to come to any decision as to the culpability of 11. F. Stevens. After further explanation, the jury retired at 8.54 p.m.,"liis Honour intimating that he could now ttake a three-fourths majority verdict. At 9.11 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 I ? Yes. 3. Was the plaintiff guilty of negligence contributing to the accident?— Yes. 4. If "yes." could the defendant Frank S. Stevens, by the exercise of reasonable care and caution, have avoided the accident?— Yes. 5. Was the said Frank S. Stevens a fit and proper person to be allowed to drive a motor-car?— Yes. 0. If "no," was the said Henry F. Stevens negligent in allowing his son to drive the said motor-car?— No.

j 7. Were the lights of the said motorIcar insufficient to the knowledge of the i defendant Henry F. Stevens when the motor-car left his house? —No answer returned. 8. If "yes," was the said Henry F. Stevens negligent in allowing his son to drive the said motor-car with insufficient lights'.'—No answer returned. f>. Damages (if any)—£2oo general damages, and £65 12/5 hospital expenses. In reply to his Honour, the foreman stated that the answers to issues 1, 2, .'i, 4. and 9 were unanimous: a,nd issues 5 and 0 were arrived at by a threefourths majority. After hearing counsel, his Honour entered judgment against Frank Sedgewiek 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 11. F. Stevens's costs was reserved.