The case brought by Mr. and Mrs. John W. Morcher against Bills Motors for US. $14,000 and. $2194.77 a medical expenses, part of which already been heard, was_continues before Judge Milton J, Helmick in the U.S. Court for China on March 16 Mr. H. D. Rodger, Mr. Myroit Wiener and Dr, F. Wilhelm are appearing for plaintiff, and Dr. George Sellett and Dr. Nelson. for the defendants, Plaintiffs, who are British subjects, allege that their child died while it was still in the pre-natal stage the result of an accident involving their own car and a Bills Motors Tu the bill of complaint, the plain" tudts alleged that the accident o¢- fourred on May 25, 1096, when their Gor was struck from behind. by a motor lorry, although it was parked on Yates Road, opposite Love Lane, in such manner as to leave plenty. of room for other trafic. Tt was fse pointed out that the lorry driver was subsequently fined $20 in the of First Special District Court, for nogligent~ driving. The defence, however, denied any responsibility in the matter, and pointed out that the driver of the lorry had not appeared in the Chinese court but, was found guilty and fined in his absence, Evidence was given by Robert John White, a police Inspector attached to) Pootoo Road Station of the Shanghai Municipal Police, He stated that on th day on which the incident occurred he was on patrol duty at Yates Road. He saw the plaintiff's car just a few Seconds before the accident, and the defendant's lorry was three car Jengths away from him when the accident occurred. It was proceeding from south to north along Yates Road at a very. responsible speed, about 15 miles per hour.
While standing on the pavement on the west side, he saw the plaintifr's car turning in to a car rank on the west side of the street. By the time that the defendant's lorry had come up with the private car, the latter was stationary... The lorry then ran straight into the private car, although the driver had plenty of opportunity of avoiding it. The driver of the lorry afterwards stated that owing to the wet surface of the road his brakes did not respond. The near side of the lorry. struck, the right side of the motor car, The driver of the lorry did not increase his speed. The plaintiff's car was knocked along about a car's length. There was no car proceeding in the opposite direction which would cause the lorry to swerve towards the pavement, Cross-examined by Dr. Sellett, wit-nefs'denied that if the cars had'been in the position described by him, the accident could not have occurred without the lorry swerving to the Fight. Asked whether he did not feel considerably uncertain about the details of his evidence as 10 months had elapsed since the accident, witness stated that he only fole uncertain about parts of it. He was certain as to the position of the two! ears at the moment of the impact.
After further eross-examination, the case was adjourned.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.