In the course of summing up, his Lordship said the ease in some way resembled the running down of a steamer at anchor by another steamer in motion: there was! negligence on the part of the one causing the collision unless he could get out of it. In this case a motor ear in motion struck a peaceful individual sitting on a seat_ pro vided by the authorities and put in a position where it was supposed to be safe, und it. was thus not necessary for plai specific act of negligence. for the defendant, if he could, to excuse himself from the consequent ces of his act. It had been said that plaintiff was ut the occu. had not been called, though it must been perfectly well known who was in it. Nor had Dr. O'lfora who saw plaintiff? immediate the accident, nor any member police, nor any other independent witness been called. Of all the manoeuvres which might certainly seem liable to cause an accident, that adopted by defendant was one. Seeing a car coming towards him, as said at from 20 to 25 miles' a hour, he immediately increased own speed and: deliberately drove across the track of the approaching ear, putting himself on the wrong side of the road straight away. Moreover he went off the road with people standing about the grass. If this sort of ma: ocuvre were to be allowed, seemed certain that the court would be occupied with more accidents of this character. Defendant's duty would have been first, to keep on his proper side of the road and, second, stop: and he himself had told the court that a car proceed ing at 20 miles an hour and fitted with efficient brakes could be stopped in from loft. to 20f. With this course open to him, he deliberately erossed to the wrong side of the road, risking an accident, and an' accident happened. His Lordship, proceeding, commented on the fact that no doctor representing. the defendant was, asked to examine plaintiff, and lence of Dr. Bary and the Doctor was therefore not When Dr. Burton examined him he had already formed an idea that the man was 2 humbug. Dr. Burton admitted this, and thus they saw that from the beginning he hada prejudice inst plaintiff.
The jury to consider their' verdict, and when they had been absent' for an hour and a half, his Lordship announced that two questions had been addressed to him by them. 'They asked if they might be allowed. to, visit the scene of the accident, and he had formed them that it was imposible at that stage of the case. 'The other question seas, as to when ther it was necessary' the verdict should be unanimous, and to this he had replied that it must be unless the parties agreed otherwise.
The foreman of the jury then asked: Can an error of judgment any way be considered as negligence?
His Lordship—ves, it can in a case like this where it led to a deliberate areach of ordinary traffic regulations. Jo such circumstances there it no doubt an error of judgment can be considered as negligence. A simple definition of negligence is the doing of something one ought not to do or doing something one ought to Witnesses Who Were Not Called.
His Lordship—There is no evidence about that. There "were heaps of witnesses who could have been called. I cannot give you any information because I do not know. We are left with the suggestion by Mr. MeDonald that the other car was guilty of negligence without their having been seen or heard in this court.
The. jury again retired, and after a absence of a quarter of hour returned with a una 1s verdict that the accident was caused by the negligence of defendant,- and they awarded plaintiff $000, Wis Lordship gave judgment accordingly, with such costs as are carried by'this amount in a suit brought in forme paupers.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.