anghai, July 6.
Before ALR. Viscest, Assistant Judge.
Dn. S. M. Cox. ¢. tar Suaxanar Exeetare Cossrauctios Ca.
Plaintiff claimed is. 750 damages ed owing to stiffness of holders who for personal injuries caused by the de-would not sell at prose erpcints. Sale fendants or their servant on May 19, tram-car in North Szechuen Road.
Mr. H. P. Wilkinson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. A. S. Wilson for inson in opening the case plaintiff said that Mr. Wilson had asked him for particulars of negligence and they had been supplied. They were a8 follows 1. Negligence of the driver or other servants of the defendant Company in proceeding at too great a.rate of speed having regard to the traffic at the time and place of accident, 2. Negligence of the driver or other servants of the Company in that he or they being in charge of an overtaking carriage did not slacken speed or stop when aware that plaintiff was in front of the car of the defendants' and proceeding in the xame direction and on his ide of the road and at a proper rate of speed, that is to say the defen dants' car wilfully chased the car of the plaintitt By means of which negligence the plaintiff suffered the damage complain-the writ.
Mr. Wilkinson said that he understood that on the return day it was arranged there should not be any pleadings and he understood that defendants entirely denied liability. The plain tiff, who wax a doctor, was proceeding along North Svechuen Road at 6.15 p.m. when this accident occurred. Counsel told the Court what the evidence for the plaintiff would be and pointed out that the Tramway Company, knowing that there were narrow spaces between th wes and the footway in many places, should see that their drivers regulated the speed of the cars as to enable ordinary traffic to proceed. with safety, The trams ran on rails and when there wax traffic on the road they could not run at such a speed ax might be safe if there was no traffic in the roadway. The tramway company had no right to hustle the traffic along the road. Counsel cited the cases of Jones r, Boyce (1 Starkey p 193) and quoted from Mayne on Damages, Mr. Wilkinson also referred to the case of The Industry (L. R. Ad and Ecc: 3, and 40 L. J. Ad. page 26).
Albert Edmond Alyar, architect and surveyor, was the first witness called. He said that he had made a sketch plan of North Svechuen Road and its junction with Boone Road. Witness produced the notes he made at the time and the plan he hud made. The plan was a copy of the Municipal survey. Going after passing Boone Road crossing, the distance between the kerb and the nearest rail of train line on the left hand side of the road was 7 feet 7 ins. The width of the road was 27 ft. 6 ins. at this spot. At the came point on the opposite side of the road the distance from the rail to the kerb was 8 ft. 2 ins. There were places in Shanghai where the distance between th lines and the kerb did not admit of the passage of any vehicle when the tram was on the lines. The North Svechuen Road was not of a uniform width,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.