LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1614, 4 December 1912, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ' (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) 9 . ■ - • •- - CONDUCTOR HURT BY MOTOR. MISSING WITNESSES, ■ LEAVE GIVEN TO CALL THEM. ' Tho Magistrate's • Court was - occupied -during a portion of yesterday hearing two claims for damages which have arisen out of a motor-car accident on the night t)f July 23. ' . William Vincent Turner, tram conductor, claimed" from George -Howard, the owner of the motor-car, 6s. sd.,._as special damages for. loss of wages, , and JilOO as general, damages. Turner alleged in-his'statement of claim.tiiat the collision had been due to the negligent driving of .William H. .ATLiickie, u servant of' tho defendant. . . Tho City Corporation, also J( against .Howard, claiming half-wages, .£ls 6s. 5d., medical expenses \£'l, loss of uniform £2 125.: total, i!l9 Os. Gd. Mr. J. O'Shea appeared in-'support of : both , claims, , and Mr. W. H. D. lieu represented the defendant. • . •The claimant Turner deposed that on the night of July 23- he had crossed Thorndon Quay. Before crossing lie looked out,-in order to ascertain whether there was traffic on the road. The possibility of a Constable Street ear approaching was one of tho matters which had engaged his attention. / v ;On facing round again he suddenly found .'the motor-car upon him. Witness thereupon called'; "Look • out!" 1 and stood still, supposing that the motorcar would swerve,.and preparing to jump aside accordingly.' The car, however, hua borne straight on. to him, and. had knocked "him down, Tun over him, and had dragged him- for : some distance, ihe motor-car. was not well he had received no warning that it was approaching. The car had been going from Lambton Quay towards Thorndon, and the nccident.had occurred just 'about opposite dispatch-b<jx. The brakes of the car had not been applied until after, the accident. 'He had received an injured shoulder, and his ankle had been h\irt;.' Hei had been off duty for eleven weeks.- During that time he had received 7s. 6d. .per week. His shouljler was not .well y6 Mr. Bell, addressing the Courts remarked that the motor-car in" question was ono of three owned- by Howard, but it was not the car which. it was MLuckies duty to' drive. : M'Luckie was not even on duty that iiight. This car tfas usually driven by one Harrison. . On SM jM'Luckie had met a friend who had jubt arrived, in Wellington, and had arranged to get the night 'off and . spend it with him. That night the friend; had said that he had some' baggage wluuh { he wishinl hi obtain : at the: railway' station.- 'M'Lnckie had'seen-Harrison's car standing outside the Theatre. Royal, had, unknown to Harrison, taken-it and gone to the railway station for the friend^s' luggage. When returning from the station tho accident occurred. . vv-: '. _• , . M'Luckie then gave evidence, lie stared- that he had been' travelling very slowly at .the time of the accident, and that the car had been' well lit. The lights only went out after the collision. ■ Mr. O'Shea,commented adversely on the fact that Harrison and Howard had not .been called to give evidence. He suggested that the case should be.adjourned in order that they might be put in the witness-box. . .. , 'Mr. Bell stated that Howard was ol present out of town, and that the whole point was whether'M'Liickio was or was not on duty at the 'time of the mishap, and that, his employer was therefore not liable for his actions. His Worship adjourned the case for a week so that Howard-and Harrison might be called. : V .: . ~. . UNDEFENDED- CASES. ;■ In the following cases judgment was ;entered for plaintiffs by default '.—A. W Izard v. Wynn Williams, 10s.. ami costs iCI 10s. 6d.; E.-Norton-and Co. v. E. Scoullar £5 10s„: and .£1 4s. 6d.; Wellington City Council, v. Walter Andrews, £12 ss.'Bd„ and dOl ss. 6d. ; Dunlop Rub ber Co. of Australasia, Ltd., v.-William A.' Bland ell, M' ,18s.' Id., and' .£1 65.; George Winder v.. John Searle, .£1 125., and 7s;; same.,v. .Tolm Sydney Boulton, "SlS'los. 7d., and £1 os. *6d.; : -351iza Marion Hawkins v. Sidney Edwards, ,£49 19s. id., and .£3 45.; E. R. M'L. Dvmock v, A. W. R-apley.- £18 95., 4d„ and .£1 13i. 6d.; D. I.loyd Clay v. Arthur John Kollv, M- 2s. Gd., and 55.; Gamble and Son v. A. Brickell, VES 10s.. and Bs.; John ft, Marshall v. Edgar H.. Claridge, j£7 25., and i6I 3u. 'Gd. ■ • >.-'

. .. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Bernard. was ordered to pay the-Stewart Timber, Gloss,-: and Hardware Company, Lid., £38 111. Id. by December 17. ■ v - v -. -

' UNDERPAID MACHINIST. W. J. S. Hayward, tailor, was lined .£1 for having employed ii machinist at a wage of, Jei 1 2s. Gd. per t weelc instead of £1 10s.; and. £1 for having permitted work to be done on a team system.

FARMER'S. CLAIM;; ' . : (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) , James. Taylor, farmer, New Plymouth, ■sued Henry Stockbridge,- .builder, Brooklyn,- for £56 Is. 2d., which amount was said tp. be a balance owing respecting arrears of -rates and interest due on a mortgage and moneys over-paid on the purchase of a property. , "Mr. E.' C. Levvey' appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. W. Jackson for the defendant. Decision was reserved.

POLICE CHARGES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddellj -S.M.) Stella Taylor, Clara Brannigan, .and Mary Anderson were each sent to' prison for ono mon'th on charges of their having importuned men in public streets.