Judge Purdy said that the claim was one for damages which it was alleged were due to the carelessness and negligence of the defendant in operating a Ford car. The defendant denied negligence and also alleged that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The cause of the accident was not so apparent as the circumstances surrounding it might lead one to lieve. According to the plaintiff he came out of the school and after Proceeding towards the city turned round and rode along the dirt track jon the left hand side. He claimed that the pony was under control and that there was no traffic. He en noticed an automobile coming]
swards him at a high rate of speed. It was in the middle of the road partly on the dirt road and ely on the macadamized surface, After this he could not more particalats of the affair until the. collision happened. The chant. four claimed that he was driving the gar at a rate not faster thi
aman coming towards him about 100 yards in front and on the dirt road. After he saw that the horseman had control. of the animal he took no more.notice until opposite the school gate when he said the horse bolted and ran into the front of the ea¥.
This was how the driver accounted for the accident and stated that' he stopped immediately and the plai fell off his horse, There were eye-witnesses who could give testimony and the result was a very ange situation. Both the plaintiff and defendant saw each other some distance away and, although! there was no traffic at the time and jsothing to attract their attention, they never noticed each other again until the impact. One of the other witnesses said he looked out of the window after hearing the impact} ard saw the plaintiff lying on the ground and the motor going down the road.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.