THE MOTOR CASE.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XXXVI, Issue 7719, 13 May 1916, Page 3

THE MOTOR CASE.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. After wc went to press on Thursday afternoon the hearing of the motor case, in which Dr. Deck sued George Ireland for £9 17s 6d, damages and loss of business following on a collision between the cars of plaintiff and defendant, was concluded. Evidence was given in support of the statement by defendant’s counsel (Mr Norris) as outlined in our last issue, and after Messrs Norris and Wcdde had addressed the Court His Worship delivered judgment. * “It is quite clear to me,” said Mr McCarthy, “that the defendant was driving at a fast pace. I arrive at that conclusion, firstly, by the fact of his difficulty in manipulating his car when approaching plaintiff’s car; secondly, the difficulty he had in effecting a turn to cause the car to swerve; and, thirdly, by the distance defendant’s car ran after the collision. I think there can be no doubt, from these facts, that the defendant was driving at a rate that he should certainly not do in a town. Plaintiff was backing out of a private right-of-way, as, of course, he had a right to do. It would, of course, be better if persons who use motor cars would back into their premises and come out head on. Plaintiff was clearly driving at a very low speed. He had only a few yards to travel, using the reverse, and the car had had no time to get up speed when the collision took place. Defendant saw plaintiff’s car at from 12 to 15 yards before he reached it. It has been shown in evidence that a Ford car can be stopped in three times its length'if only travelling at 13 or 14 miles an hour. Defendant states he was going at that speed; then he should have been able to stop his car before it reached plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to succeed on his main claim in respect to damage.” With regard to the claim of £3 for loss of business suffered by being unable to proceed to Waipukurau, the Magistrate said it could not succeed. The utmost that could be allowed would be the hire of a car if plaintiff had secured one to fulfil his appointment.

Judgment was entered up for plaintiff for £6 17s 6d, Court costs £1 12s, solicitor’s fee £1 6s, witnesses’ expenses £2 3s. In respect to the counter-claim judgment went for defendant without costs.