MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume LXI, Issue 16276, 21 January 1927, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

MOTOR-CYCLE v. BICYCLES. FINE OF 50/- IMPOSED. The case Police v. L. Griffin, the sequel to a collision between a motorcycle ridden by him and two cycles ridden by the sons of Mr. A. E. Court, was concluded yesterday afternoon. A. E. Court, father of the two boys, gave evidence .that he viewed the place of the accident about L 5 minutes afterwards. With Mr. Teasdale, he measured the distance from the corner. He recognised the place by the scoring on the road and the mark of the skid of the back wheel of the motor-cycle. He measured 32 feet from the corner. The skid of the back wheel of the motor-cycle measured 3ft. din. from the gutter. His boys had been riding cycles for four or five years, and it was understood the corner was a very dangerous one and the boys always went carefully. There had been accidents there before. Witness had ridden a motor-cycle for five years. If Griffin had been on his correct side there would have been no accident. To Mi. Clendon: The skid was from the back wheel. He understood Griffin’s pedal was bent and the glass of the lamp broken. This concluded the case for the Police.

Mr. Clendon said there was always a sharp conflict of evidence in cases like the present. The law regarded such offences as serious ones. His Worship must be satisfied that there was negligent driving before deciding against the defendant. There was a growth of trees that hid the view. It was alleged the accident happened on the wrong side of the road. Sergeant McDonnell said that no motor-cyclist could properly control a motor-cycle with a ladder on his hack. Continuing, Mr. Clendon said if this were a civil case, and if it were proved the defendant was on the wrong side of the road, then there would be negligence. But there was joint negligence in this case, and each party had to inform the other of his approach. The boys had no warning bells. The by-law said all cycles had to carry alarm bells. The defendant sounded his horn. In a civil case the boys would not he entitled to recover. He was not going to suggest the boys were lying, but they were mistaken in the confusion of the accident as regards their position. If Griffin crossed, the street, then it was the act of a lunatic. It was not likely he steered such a course. Counsel contended that the boys had been on the wrong side of the road and had crossed it and crashed into Griffin. No independent witness had been called who could throw any light on the accident or its cause. His YVofship must he satisfied of gross negligence before deciding against the defendant. The fact that the ladder was there had nothing to do with the offence. The defendant was a young man in the employ of the Borough Council, and had to attend to 180 lamps covering some three miles in area. He used his own cycle to go round on inspection. The defendant should be as readily believed as the witnesses heard that day. Edward Leonard Griffin said he used his motor-cycle for the purpose of saying time on the hilly country. His cycle measured about 7ft. His saddle was 44ft. from the front. The ladder was 16ft. long, and projected about 3ft. Gin. over the front of the cycle. The ladder was carried on the shoulder, and he mostly used a strap, leaving his hands free. He had not had an accident before. He went regularly up Richmond Street on Saturday mornings. He was on his- proper side in Rolleston Street. He saw Mr. Brokenshire on the corner. He was travelling about eight miles an hour. His controls were on the left-hand side. The view was obstructed at the corner. He had no intimation that two cycles were coming to the corner. He kept close to the corner on the left. The corner was banked. The first he saw when rounding it was the two cycles coming down on the wrong side, and they endeavoured to get to the left, and ran into witness. They were travelling about 10 to 15 miles per hour. The first he knew was the ladder being torn from his shoulder by the first cycle. His machine weighed about 2001bs. He sounded his . horn. The machine was out of gear when he was struck. He could not have done any more than he did. The boy whose machine was smashed collided with the ladder and the second boy crashed into his brother’s cycle. He did not notice the gash on the boy’s head at first. He swore that this was a correct account of what happened. He consideied that his weight was sufficient to make the motor-cycle go across the road when it was struck. If he had had warning from the approaching cycles he could have stopped. To the Sergeant: He was about 20 feet away from the hoys when he firstsaw them. He was then travelling at four miles an hour. His cycle was stopped when the impact happened. The boys striking the ladder caused them to be thrown in the gutter and on the bank. He had been carrying the ladder for about three months. He thought the boys were mistaken and had not told the truth. His pedal did not go into the gutter. The front wheel was about a foot off the gutter. He judged that He was only going four miles an hour. He had not considered whether it was dangerous to carry a 16ft. ladder on a- motbr-cycle. He had to use his hand on the ladder at times. He was not instructed by the Council to use his motor-cycle for this purpose. To Mr. Clendon: He alleged the boys were mistaken. There was ample room to pass if the hoys had been on their right side. His Worship said the evidence of the boys was confirmed by that of Broken«hire. He was satisfied the hoys were on their right side when the defendant came round the corner, and either his speed or the weight of the ladder caused him to swerve. He should have exercised additional care. He was guilty of negligence, and must he convicted. He would be fined 00/- and ordered to pay costs.