THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20171, 25 February 1931, Page 5

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL. TUESDAY. (Before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M.) DRUNKEN MOTORIST. * Robert Noble Pye, a chimney-sweep,. ; waß fined £lO, In default o month's imprisonment -With hard labour, for being dr.unk in charge Of a car in Marriott's road on; February 28rd Fourteen days were allowed in which to pay the fine. He was prohibited from obtaining a driving license for twelve months. On a charge of driving without a license, he was convicted and fined 20s and costs, and for fighting in Marriott's road .was convicted and discharged. Pye pleaded guilty to 81 Sub®lnsp a e r ftor P. J. O'Hara said that about *6 p.m. on Monday accused , had a fight m Marriott's road. He had his car there and .was in an advanced state of intoxication and drove his car home before the arrival of the police. Later he had been arrested. COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE, Tamna Cope, a labourer, aged' 34, was charged with. breaking and entering by on February 15th, the house of David ThomasSmith.at 334 Stanmore road, and committing th Chief-Detective J. Carroll. said t Cope had " houßO on February 14th ana recelved some assistance from Mr Smith. On the following day he went back ;to the h °David n Thom« o SmiVskid that on February 16th he had left his house unoceupled in the evening, leaving aU the doors and windows locked On his return he found, the house had leen iansaeked. His bedroom : wJndo«w was brtken and had been left open. Two watches and 80-me keys were mißsing. _ Detective R. Thompson said that on February 17th he interviewed accused. He frankly admitted the offence and made a statement. Acoused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. INEFFICIENT SILENCER. James Brown (Mr A. J. Malley) was fined 'Bos and costs for driving a motor-cycle which was not equipped with an efficient silencer. CIVIL COURT. (Before Mr H. A. Young, S.M.) The following judgments for plaintiff by default were entered:—H. 0. Urlwin, Ltd. v. J Gates £3 is; H. R. Sampson v. N. Egan, £3 OS 6d; Olarks, Ltd., v H- S.Reed, £2 ilOs 4d: Whitcowbe and Tombs, Ltd. v. 0. Williams. 18s 9d; Charles S. Thomas v. C. Mugford, 15s lid; Arnaud McKellar, trustee in the assigned estate of Claude Glanville v William J. Ballock, £2O; Jones Motors. Ltd. v. John Joseph Prendergast, £26 3s ad- W. O. Johnston and Evelyn M. Harris v. Henry Victor Lay, £lO 18s fid; Ashby, Bereh and Co., Ltd. v. H. Pool, £2 3s; S. Whitiaker v. E. Davidson, £1 IDs 2d; B.'A. Sutcliffe v. P. Thompson, £lO ISs Id; Sargood. Son, and Ewen, Ltd. v. J. Chambers, £ll2 Os fid; Butler Timber Co., Ltd. v. N. Stewart, £l7 8s 8d; Daly Brothers, Ltd. v. I Thomas L. Jones, Ltd., £5 la 4d; Ford Motors, Ltd. v. H. L. Reed, £lO 2s; J. J. Niven and Co., Ltd. v. John Smith, Os lOd; J. Ballantyne and Co., Ltd. v. J. Kinchey, £6 Ss 8d; George A. D. Sutherland v. Leslie W. H. Scott, £42 IBs lOd; Booth, Macdaiald and Co., Ltd. v. David Ormsby, £34 14a 4d; G. J. Morrow v. Charles Blacklock, £4 6s; Atlantic Union Oil Co., Ltd. v. D. Stalker, £8 • Is 4d; Colder, Mackay.and Co., Ltd. v. G. E. Drummond, £2 10s. i CLAIM FOR RENT. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, L. A. Laviu, in a claim for rent, £lO, against J. H. O'Callaghan, and on order was made for defendant,to .give possession of the houso to plaintiff'on or, before February 28th. judgment Summons. ' : ~v j.-Owei.was ordered'to pay A. L. Gray : the sum of £2 ISs '2d'forthwith, In' default . -three 'days'. imprisonment. ■ (Before Mr IS. D. Mosley, S.M.) CLAIM FAILS. .William Charles Sanders (Mr B."S. Bowie) claimed from. EflgAr Scott (Mr W. 1\ Tracy) the sum ot 46, the value of a carpet belonging to the .plaintiff, which was alleged to havei been/wrongfully .converted "by .the defendant in December, 1 ,> Judgment was given for the s'defendant with copts. • COLLISION' CLAIM. A collision betwoentwo ears at the corner" in* KUm^re' 1 and ■ Manchester streets on July 17th, 1989, was the cause of a claim l for. damages, -When Nellie Marion 'Jones (Mr 1 Roy Twyneham) claimed £l7 17s8d from Albert Frederick Rushton : (Mr F. ;!W. John-ston),-alleging that defendant's;,car had been driven .. At an -excessive speed, that it had < nqti been adequately > lighted, and that he had controlled It negligently. , Mr Twyneham said that plaintiff's car was Jtaingr drfwn, hy. her Uushand*, prndeificfc Jld-f, mund Janes,"and Mr Jones gave evidence that he was travelling along Kilmore street at the time of the' aceident. hud been about 4.50 p.m., and < the light was Jo«t beginning tb fail. Be had been travelling at. ' eight or - ten miles per hour. When, more -than half-way across, the Manchester street intersection hesaw, defendant's c«r .-coming - up Manchester street at a fast speed.' Feeling uureihatlf he went on defendont would be > able .to' pus behind him, he did net i slacken speed. However, defendant came straight- on and hit the "rear right wheel of witness's tear and swung' it round, so that U brought -up ' almost on the farther pave* ment, After the impact' defendant's car went on ior about IS yards and stopped against m tree on; ttie other side of a low wall,. in the- ground of St. Luke's Church. Two women hqd been in' the car, said wit* ness," when he vent 'up to it, but 'he had seen no i'&n of defendant nor of any man near -the., .ear. . ..The defendant had certainly, not cotne to ask if witness was hurt,-'and neither of the womeh had said that i m had *lieen driving them, so < that he hadtunderstood that one bf them had beefr . driving. lights >|. his cat* had been Switched >on *t;the time'of the-accident. Bobert- J Hp*l|«h and James Thomas Collins both' gate evidence that .they had been in the church' grounds at the time. 1 Neither of then had seen the collision, but both had beard ;the 'crash. Neither remembered .having seen' on the cars. ; ' Fordefenaant,' Mr Johnston said that the immediate' cause of the accident was the action of (Tones. Defendant's car had been coming up Manchester street at a reasonable rate of speed, with 1 ail its lights on. If Mr Jones, had; not gone straight on, but ;had pulled - np. or even had swerved sharply, the accident would have been avoided. Frederick Rushton said he had seen 'plaintiff's car when he had almost reached, the intersection, and had swung out to try. to' CVI 'toQAd ls frost *of it. >. 9* tftfSSifto orifee th»t thls was JmposslbK and had then -tried to get round behind it, but had failed. He had "expected, the car to pull up, But It -Jb'ad not , done so. The lights ofjones's <ssr had not been on. Witness had not spoken tb Jones during the»«eene that followed the evident. He had been travelling, -before the accident, at-*bout \l7> an hour, but had slowed up as,he ap* C Rushton! wife of defendant, who had been i»» the ear at the time, also gave ' *'sha°lkagistrate remarked it was a most extraordinary-ewe. . accident had, occurred In Jhly. 1929,. and the claim had not been heard till February, 1981, when i&e witnesses, he have reconstructed the case time ana tune •jtfetoi "It V»s not fair, to 1 ask the Court ,t? Sve a decision on such^-evidence. The : worth anything was that of Mr Jdnenftnd Mr Rushton,- who had directly, con. -.tradicted »each.- other. He knew them ronly b» 'reuttte. add he. presumed they hsd' been telling -their 'stories with a due appreciation ,of the-natnre- of evidence. Yet what they had 1 said; 'regarding < the lights •on - tfcfe cars, t the aod' to some extent the, •position ,in Which 'the cars had finished up was diamet* "ji/Ijlv ADtiosed. Under,,the circumstances he must non-suit the plaintiff and allow,costs against' him. ~ ; "V, fir-ATM- FOR. GOODS.' '/.The Canterbury Co-operative Society (Mr JR iS.i Brown) clolmed to recover the sum of £I4IOS 'Bd for goods, supplied, to Willlam J. snn«4''<Mr. W. F.Sfcacey). ' Judgment was the Society withveosts. _ 1 *