P. C. 767, attached to Central aration, said that he saw a foreigner walk ahead of the vehicle. The thus struck him He could not identify complainant as being the Victim, but said that he wore a moustache, He was first attracted to Doveltoff, because he purchased food from vendor. He paid no attention t9 chim for a mofsnt because he gave ghase to the, peddler. Munchin 3d, accor rfligg to witness, took place near the War Memorial. Witness did not know if the driver sounded a signal, as he was not within hearing distance.
Immediately after tiffin, complainant having finished his' case, Mr. Master moved for a dismissa} of the case, because, as he said, it had not been affirmatively shown that defendant's employee had been neglig—ent. He cited numerous authorities, Dut his Lordship said, "I want you to show authorities ' referring t9 rights of the road and vehicular trafic, "A pedestrian has as much right on the roads as a vehicle."
Mr. Master:—But must exercise! the same amount of caution and care. If he is negligent, he is at fault. Plaintiff has not shown affirmative negligence on the part of defendant. The circumstances of an accident must all have been proved to shave been in the hands of defendant before assumptive negligence may be invoked.
Continuing, Mr. Master said that in Shanghai there was a_greater duty of caution on the part of pedestrians than in any other place in the world, This was because of! abnormal traffic conditions.
As the concluded his argument, Mr, Master said that a Judge at Home would have to instruct a jury to find in favour of defendant." In Shanghai his Lordship was "both Judge and jury. If the Lordship agreed with counsel that affirmative negligence had not been shown, then it lett his Lordship as judge' with no other recommendation to his function as jury, but that of dismissal.
Mr. Plate said that his client, as there was no pavement across portion of the road, that he more or and had bus. Under stich conditions it was not necessary to show more proof than ie had \dvanced. The driver was negligent! in striking plaintiff, just as much if he had been a vehicle. There was evidence of neglect, and unless they could rebut it, they must be linble His Lordship:—I am with you, Mr, Master, but I would like to hear the driver's version.
After intimating that he would be pleased to put in the driver, Master contended that in justice to his client, he had to hold to his original position on the matter of affirmative evidence, and that not enough had been presented for his Lordship to instruct a jury.
Judge Grain then dismissed the action, and said that the C.P.C. evidence showed that plaintiff had bought food and was eating it in the roadway, and that the bus was neither travelling fast or slow. It} might even happened that the driver could nob see him as he stepped from behind the "kiosk." He felt that he could not direct a jury to bring in a verdict against defendant. With the facts before him, he was bound by the law to find for defen-Jdant. He would not access costs as the action had been brought in forme Before adjourning Court, _his Lordshig requested Mr. Master to try and have his Company pay ce compassionate grant, as plaintiff was in bad straits, and thanked Mr. Platt for the interest Ihe had taken in the case on behalf of the plaintiff, suing in forma rauperis, Koswer, an Austrian, was brought before the Mixed' Court on Tuesday. on a charge of stealing clock and a number of engineers' tools from a Japanese steam launch which was moored at the Canton Road Jetty early yesterday morning. Messrs. Bucknell and Kuan remaind-ed the hearing for a week.
ON Monday in the Mixed Court before Messrs, Martin and Kuan the hearing of the charges against Gaarles Maitland was continued, il i
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.