For the defence, Mr. MacDonald told the jury that however much they might sympathize with plaintiff in this distressing case, they must riot allow sympathy to obscure the only issue in the ease, viz., whether or not defendant had been' guilty: negligence. They were not interested in the question of damages until this had been decided. The defence was that defendant had exercised reasonable care and diligence in endeavouring to avoid the accident jand therefore could not be found to have been negligent." What happened was that the wrong man hae Deen sued.
Defendant then gave his version of the affair. He said that he was driving his ear towards the Reereation Club and, on taking the turn at the Lawn Bowls Club, at a speed of about eight miles an hour, blew his horn, On turning, he saw another car approaching, on the wrong side of the road, and at about 20 miles an hour, and' had to make up his mind quickly what course:0 adopt.
Had he gone forward remaining on his proper side collision would have been inevitabl and the only possible alternate seemed to be to accelerate and clear of the other ear. This he crossing over to the green. He would have gone straight on to the Police ground, but there was 1 little knot of people standing at the mer near the Lawn Bowls Club, to avoid them he had to steer to the left, This put him in line with the seat upon which plaintiff und his friend were sitting, and he at once put on his brakes and stalled the engine, but could not. avoid striking the back part of the out end on. Mr. Stebelsky was thrown clear of the seat, which pushed from beneath plaintiff, causing him to fall straight to the ground. The seat was pushed along some five feet, and the ear had been pulled up before the seat stopped moving.
Letter Asking for $250
Witness described the assistance which was then given to plaintiff, adding that he. called at the hospital two or three times to see what could be done for him, and went on to say Nat when plaintiff had been discharged from hospital he came round with a letter ing for $250.
Witness referred him to witness view of the other on the wrong side 20 miles an hour, tered the only thing he was to get on the grass out ofts way.
His Lordship—Weren't you run ning an appalling risk in doing x0, apart from any question of negligence? Supposing the driver of 1 other car had crossed over to proper side, would there not have been a most almighty smash?
Witness—If I had held on my course he might have done the same.
Mr. Mansel, Reeee—Why did you go over on the grass at all? Why not have erossed to the right of the road only?
Witness—Beeaiise I was afraid of the speed of the other ear. If there had been plenty of room on the road there would have been no need to. fo on the grass.
Thomas Mason was next called Asked what he thought might have happened if Mr. Humphries had not Plaintiff re-called, and que: with regard to the'letter which he took defendant, said the request was not, as defendant said for $250, but for' 8: He denied that the} lotter described by defendant was the one he took. There was a further letter in which $500 was men-Honed ax suitable compensation, but this, sum had been stated in error by its writer The hearing was then adjourned nti next morning.
Ilamphries to Pay $600: Deliberate Breach of Ordinary.
Traffic Rules The care was concluded on Thursday.
Addressing the jury on behalf of defendant Mr. MeDonald said that jon the question of damages, they must take into consideration plain tiff's condition prior to the accident, and Dr. Burton, who was entirely'
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.