UNUSUAL CASE BEFORE COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 143, 18 June 1931, Page 9

UNUSUAL CASE BEFORE COURT.

UNIQUE APPLICATION BY INSURANCE COMPANY. An interesting insurance case was heard at the Magistrate’s Court this afternoon, before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., when the Southern Union General Insurance Co., Ltd., asked for an order suspending the driving license of William Milner, contractor, of Riccarton, on the grounds that he was a danger to the public. The application was brought under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (third party risks) Act, 1928, and is the first of its kind in New Zealand. Mr Tracy appeared for the company, and Mr Hanlon, K.C., of Dunedin, and with him Mr Simes, appeared for Milner. In its application, the Southern Union General Insurance Company, Ltd., set out that it had entered into a contract with Milner, and the application was made on the grounds that the safety of the public was being unduly endangered by Milner. Application was also made for an order disqualifying Milner from obtaining another license for such period as the Magistrate might think fit. The defendant was also charged that on March 23 he drove a motor vehicle along Oxford Terrace in a manner dangerous to the public. A plea of not guilty was entered on the dangerous driving charge, and the first application was defended. The cases were heard together. A Collision. Mr Tracy said that defendant went over the intersection of Oxford Terrace and Montreal Street at thirty miles per hour, and ©ollided with another car. Millner, it was alleged, went straight on. He would have got away, but for the action of Dr W. M. Cotter who, driving nearby, chased Millner right round Hagley Park and got his number near the Hospital. Dr W. M. Cotter said, in evidence, that on March 23 he was driving on to Oxford Terrace. Another car was approaching from the north along Montreal Street, and was just about to cross Oxford Terrace. As he came to the intersection, another car came along the Terrace and crashed into the first car, then went straight on. Witness drove after this car and secured the number. The speed at the time of the accident was about 30 m.p.h. Witness could not catch him at thirty miles per hour. To Mr Hanlon, witness said that the car he chased was a sedan. He had forgotten the time of the accident. When he followed the car, he lost eight of the car once, and there was another car. There was a remote possibility of his having taken the number of a different car, but it was only a remote possibility. ’(Proceeding.)