STRIKING SHEARERS RIOT

Taranaki Daily News, 31 January 1931, Page 7

STRIKING SHEARERS RIOT

THREAT TO SHOOT OWNERS

VIOLENT EJECTION OF LOYALISTS

DRASTIC ACTION IN QUEENSLAND

By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.

Brisbane, Jan. 30.

Drastic action was takS'n by striking ehearers in the Surat district. At three sheds employees were threatened by angry strikers that they would be shot if they did not pack up their swags. Loyalists at two sheds walked off but those at the third did not submit without a struggle. Fifty strikers invaded the huts at Alorrindoo and ordered workers to leave. A tight followed and the loyalists were roughly handled. Shots were fired but no one was hit. Two policemen were powerless to prevent the ejection of the loyalists.

ECHO OF MOTOR COLLISION

CLAIM FOR £229 DAMAGES.

CASE .CONCLUDED AT MANAIA.

The case in which J. J. Patterson claimed from H. and C. Sutton the sum of £229 I4s 6d as damages arising out of a motor collision at the corner of Alain South and Normanby P.oads in July, 1927, was continued at the Manaia Court yesterday.

Constable John Scannell gave evidence concerning the accident. When he arrived Airs. Sutton’s car was on the side of the road facing Otakeho, the front axle and mudguard being damaged. Patterson’s car was lying on its side facing up Normanby Road, both front wheels being broken. The wheel marks showed that Patterson was well on his correct side. Mrs. Sutton’s car was coming out of Normanby Road about the centre, and there were marks showing that the brakes had been applied for about six feet, Patterson's cai appeared to have skidded towards the right and overturned, at the right hand side of the road. His opinion was that the drivers saw each other when it was 'too late. There was ample room to have avoided an accident had Patterson been travelling at a steady pace. After the accident Sutton asked Patterson to pay for the damages to his ear. The latter replied that both should pay their own expenses'. He said that Sutton had got off very lightly. In answer to a question witness said he did not think that Patterson’s car was overturned by Airs. Sutton’s car pushing it over, but that the capsize was due to the momentum, resulting from the pace of Patterson’s car. He always found Patterson a careful driver.

Charles M. Jeromson, garage proprietor, gave evidence regarding the damage to Airs. Sutton's car. Harry Sutton said that at the time of the accident the car was in good order and the brakes were very severe. ; His wife was being; taught to drive and was to. have got her license the next morning. She fully understood the workings, of the car and had taken many lessons under his tuition, but he considered it wise to get Air. Wilson to complete the instruction; Winifred Sutton, daughter of the de- . fiendant, gave evidence concerning the collision. The middle part of Patterson’s left hand side hit their car and then Patterson’s car swerved and overturned. ■ '■•

Catherine Sutton, defendant, said that she intended to go for her driver’© test on the morning following the accident. Leaving home at 10.30 she drove up Normanby Road, intending to go to .church at Manaia. The speed would be from 15 to 20 mile© an hour, a material slackening being made a couple of chains from the corner. About a chain from the corner the horn was blowrt and also closer to the corner. She travelled on her correct eide of the road. There was a hedge with gorse at th© corner. It was when a few feet from the corner she observed Patterson’s car. Her car had not come on to the intersection then. Patterson was travelling very much faster. She put on the foot brake hard, Wilson put on the hand brake, and the car pulled up almost immediately. Then Patterson’s car hit them on the right hand side. After Patterson had lifted Mrs, Patterson out of the car ho came along and said “I never saw you till I hit you.” She did not look for any skid marks.

Mr. Houston said that plaintiff war, the wealthiest farmer in Taranaki whereas his client was a small farmer. He referred to the lapse of three years before the claim was made, strongly condemning the delay, and said that plaintiff’s reason that he was busy was one of the strangest he had heard. The second reason was that he was waiting for Sutton’s financial position to improve. He could not accept this in view of Patterson’s statement after the collision that both should pay their own damages. The defence rested on a complete denial of negligence, a plea of contributory negligence, and that there was an agreement for each to pay his own damages. Plaintiff had not proved his case. There was not a singl > eye-witness for plaintiff, where for the defence there was a trained observer in the constable, who arrived shortly after the accident, plaintiff’s contributory negligence consisted of his failu’e to keep a proper, or any, look-out, and driving at an excessive speed, and his failure to give sufficient, if any, warning of his approach. Mr. O’Dea asked the court not in the slightest to be influenced by the appeal that defendant was a poor man and plaintiff wa© rich. He,, said the delay in bringing the action was explained by plaintift’s absence in the Waikato and that he had been very busy. The whole point in the cate was who was dominantly at fault. Surely it was Mrs. Sutton, who was coming out of a side road where the side road rule applied. Concerning Patterson’s speed, there was definite evidence that plaintiff was going at a. moderate speed. On the other hand there was defendant, a learner, who came out of a side road and stopped in front of the oncoming car. He submitted that to find in favour of defendant the court would have to rule that but for plaintiff's contributory negligence the incident would not have occurred. Counsel held that the court could not come to that conclusion on the evidence and that plaintiff must succeed.

The court then adjourned, decision being reserved,