FARMER SUED

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 9817, 22 February 1936, Page 8

FARMER SUED

HEART ATTACK ALLEGED. WIDOW BEEKS COMPENSATION. JURY* AWARDS DAMAGES. Believing one portion of the medical evidence which considered it was impossible for a man to drive in an unconscious state for 100 yards a* the result of a heart attack, the Jury found for plaintiffs in the case in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday in which Edith Augusta Ward, widow, and her stepdaughter, Gertrude Edith West, of Te Awainutu, claimed £350 damages from James Coutts Mitchell, farmer, of Ohaupo. The evidence showed that Charles Ward, aged 82, who was wheeling a barrow on the correct side of the road near St. John’s Church, Te Awamutu, was knocked down and fatally injured by a car driven by defendant. Mr W. J. King appeared for plaintiffs and Messrs J. F. Strang and N. S. Johnson for defendant. In summing up His Honour emphasised that the onus of proof was on the plaintiffs. The jury had to make up their minds whether defendant’s version of the cause of the accident was borne out by "the medical evidence. After a retirement of about two hours the jury found for plaintiffs and awarded them £159. YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS. The following evidence was given after we went to press yesterday:— Dr. F. C. Blundell, of Te Awamutu, described the defendant’s condition when he examined him. His heart was diseased and the effect would be to produce attacks of dizziness and temporary loss of consciousness. He was also suffering from hardening of the arteries. Cross-examined, witness expressed the opinion that both the heart an.l brain were affected by defendant’s condition. If he had lost consciousness in the manner described he did not consider he could have driven over the bridge safely. Condition of Heart. Dr. E. C. Brewls, of Hamilton, said he had examined defendant that day, and discovered a diseased heart and unhealthy blood vessels. Defendant might have lost consciousness driving a car. It would be possible. Innis opinion, for him to keep to the roid for 150 yards while unconscious. This concluded the case for the defence, and Mr King proceeded to call medical evidence in rebuttal. Dr. G. W. Gower, of Hamilton, said he first examined defendant on November 18 last. Defendant said he had never before lost consciousness. In his opinion defendant was suffering from a disease which would cause loss of consciousness, but not temporary loss, as In the present case. It would take defendant some time to recover consciousness. In his opinion the suggestion that defendant drove 150 yards without leaving the road while unconscious was impossible. Witness believed that defendant simply failed to notice the deceased. On November 18, after examining defendant, he would be prepared to grant him a license. Dr. M. M. Hockin, medical superintendent of the Waikato Hospital, gave similar evidence. He did not consider defendant suffered temporary loss of consciousness, with a quick recovery. If defendant said he did not see the deceased he would not ascribe that to any medical condition. Recalled, Dr. Hiskens said after the accident defendant did not complain of loss of consciousness and showed no signs of it.