RESERVED JUDGMENT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19814, 4 December 1919, Page 7

RESERVED JUDGMENT.

NORTH V. H ALU CAN. 1 DECISION FOR THE PLAINTIFF. Mr S' E. McCarthy, S.M., delivered his reserved judgment at the Magistrate's Court this morning in the case between Alfred North, plaintiff, and ( Samuel Halligan, defendant, a claim of * i:H) 10s in respect oi damage to plaintiff’s motor-cycle and eide-car coneoQuont on defoudant’s alleged negligent driving 0f .% motor-car. At the hearing of tho case on November 27, Mr F. t> Wilding appeared for the plaintiff and Mr F. W. Johnston for the defendant In reviewing the evidence ( before the Court, the Magistrate stated that the accident happened on the evening of Saturday, September 27, and the plaintiff had been visiting at the house of Mr William,Dawson on Hills Koatl He came out of Mr Dawson's houso about twenty minutes past uiuo, and the aocideut happened about half-past nine. Hie plaintiff, having ridden the cycle along the footpath Lu the direction of the junction of Hills Hoad and Warnngton Street, turnoff its head tovrards Christchurch and brought it- to a standstill on the near aide of the crown of the road just opposite the bedroom window of Mr Dawson's house. The evidence for the plaintiff was that, whilst Mr and. Miss Dawson and himself were standing alongside the cycle, rhey almost simultaneously noticed a motor-car approaching them from the direction of Warringtoff Street. As the car approached it still held on its former course, and the three standing alongside called out to the drivtor ; of the car, who took no notice, but drove straight into the- side-chair, and the cycle and side-chair wore lifted bodily off the ground and carried thus about, 10ft or 12ft, when, they foil down and ujf're carried in a curved direction until they were brought up standing by the water channel, which prevented their being carried some distance further, liio cycle was either pushed or carried by the car a distance of about, 50ft, and the three Witnesses, who had been before the collision standing round the c M'le, staled that they had to hurriedlv .step aside to avoid being run over. Each 'positively swore that the driver of the car, who proved to be the d'e-i fondant, was obviously under the influence of alcohol, was thick in his speech and unsteady in his gait, and smelt strongly of alcohol. They also swore that ho was driving at a. fast, pace. The plaintiff’s father, who saw the defendant about three-quarters of an hour or an hour after the accident, also swore that defendant was under the influence | of liquor, and-Mr Tooles, a neighbour of Mr Dawson, said defendant was nob far from be' ll S drunk, and was not in a tit condition to control a motor-car. The defendant, who besides the .three who were standing round the cycle was the only person who could speak as to the actual happening of the accident, denied being under the influence of alcohol, and swore than the cycle was unlighted and had no persons standing near it at the time of the accident. Defendant said that he did . not see tlici group around the motor-cycle, but that he saw an., object on the road forty or fifty yards off which he ' could not identify, and his only excuse for running into the cycle, which was the object he had just previously seen, was that his attention was temporarily averted by a cull from a possible passenger. “ Iho reason of defendant’s failure to sco the persons round the motorcycle was that, his seuso of vision was temporarily impaired. This is consistent with a state of intoxication but not of sobriety. If defendant was not under the influence of liquor he was either insane or .criminally reckless. Clearly, apart from the question of delendant’s sobriety or otherwise at the time of the accident he, on ins own allowing, Was alone responsible for the accident. The absence of the rear light bn the cycle was not a. contributing factor because defendant admits he saw on the road an object ; which could have been none other than the cycle and yet lie ran into it ami tails to explain why. Jt may bo urged that plaintiff could have removed his cycle and thus have averted the accident. The reply to this is that plaintiff gave dcieudaut credit for acting reasonably, and should not be damnified because, contrary to expectation, ho acted unreasonably." Alter analysing the evidence for the defendant on the question of flelenclant’s sobriety at the time of the ac- ’ cident, Ids d orship added; “If the sobriety of a motor driver is seriously. ; questioned it is not enough for him to prove lie was not drunk. He must establish ( beyond the shadow of a doubt that lie was sober. He is ustng-on the tughw'ays «. vehicle easily controlled by an efficient driver, but capable of doing much nnschiel if negligently driven. Jweeping in view defendant’s own testimony as to his inability to pick up Hie three persons standing round the cyclo immediately prior to tho accident, one can only come to the conclusion that the evidence of plaintiff and his witnesses as to defendant’s intoxicated condition is true, and so 1 find. Defendant had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident and not only tailed but .was unable to avail himself of it. .Judgment will bo rei corded for the plaintiff for tho amount . claimed, together with costs.”