MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2930, 16 November 1916, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

RESULT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT

In the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Edwards and a common jury of twelve, the hearing o fthe claim for damages brought by Alfred Ernest Cocker against Sirs. N. Nightingale was continued. Mr. J. O'Shea, City Solioitor, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. M. Wilford for tho defendant. On tbo previous day tha hearing of evidence was completed, and. an adjournment was made to settle the issues to be submitted to the jury, and these worn fixed as follows (1) Was the accident whereby the plaintiff. was injured caused by the negligence of Marshall, the servant of the defendant? (2) Could the plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonablo caro immediately prior to the accident, liavo avoided the injury to himself? (3) Was Marshall, at the time of the acoident, acting in the course of his employment? (4) What damages (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover?

After the jury had been addressed by counsel, His Honour summed up, and pointed out that exceeding, the speed limit on the part of drivers of motor vehicles was rife, and in this case the fact that Cocker was carried by the taxi some distance indicated the speed at which the car was being _ driven: For the employer to bo held liable, according to law, it must be shown that the employee was engaged at the time on the business of bis employer. Marshall was at the time driving to the station to recover his overcoat, and the overcoat was a necessary part of his equipment.

The jury retired at twenty minutes to twelve, and returned at 4 p.m., and the foreman handed in the answers to the questions submitted them. .His Honour intimated that thero was not a three-fourths majority on issue No. 2, but that there was a three-fourths majority on the other issues, and lie left it to counsel to decide whether theywould accept the verdict as it stood. Mr. Wilford remarked it was a serious responsibility to take. His Honour said lie did not wish any one to take responsibility. Mr. Wilford: "I dnn't know what to do, Your Honour." His Honour: "I am sorry I cannot help you, Mr. Wilford." Mr. O'Shea agreed to accept the verdict, subject to his right to move. Mr. _ .Wilford, after consulting with his client, decided not to accept the .verdict.' His Honoiir'then ordered a now trial, date to be fixed later. CRIMINAL' SESSIONS. ASSAULT ON ft RANGER. 'At th© Supreme Court yesterday, before tha Chief- Justice (Sir Robert Stout) the hearing of the case against Richard Whits, charged with assault-i ing Robert Charles Dick, the Hutt County Ranger, so as to cause him actual bodily harm, was continued. Other witnesses called for tho defence were:

Thomas Ward, surveyor, who gave evidence as to distances.

Clarence Hobbs, who was present on the occasion, gave evidence of the incidents that took place. ' Ho was inside when he heard' the ranger's whistle. White came out' of the house after ho did. White was with them only for a little while, and then said "Good night," and walked away upthe road. ■ The others .continued "talkilia for two or three minutes after White had left; when the ranger said ho would go and try and find out tho owner of tho horse that had gone up tho road. Witness and another stayed a little while, and then placed • the horse they had with them in the paddock. Very soon afterwards ho saw Mr. Brandon going along the road, and later saw another man. • Presently thiy saw a horse with saddle and bridle coming .down the road; it was Dick's horse, and witness secured it.' Then he saw Mr. -Brandon helping Dick along. Tho latter was injured.

Thoraas_ Reesby said he knew the ranger Dick for some years, and tho accused for about two years. He worked for acctised sometimes. Wit. ness owned a liorso, and also had in his custody White's horse. This latter had never been seized by." tho ranger. His (Reesby's) own horse had been taken .by tho ranger onco before September 26. Wliito had no interest or- concern in witness's horse. He was in bed when ' the ranger was brought to liis house injured. Ho sot up, and helped to attend to liim. Tho ranger said ho was hit with a stone, and tho six or'seven who were thero were discussing as to who was likel.v to liavo thrown the stone. Next morning the ranger asked witness to see if the half-clipped horso he (tho ranger) was after tho previous evening was about. Witness did so, and found the animal in tho paddock, and the ranger also saw the horse. The ranger said that was tho liorse, rightenough. ■ Later, witness drovo the ranger to Dr. Hector's, and on tho road they conversed about the accident, and tho ranger said ho thought it must have been White who threw the stone, as he was tho only man who had gone up that road.

In cross-examination, witness admitted that he had been summoned several times by the ranger for allowing stock to wander. White camo round to witness's house when ho was potting the gig ready to, t-ako Dick to tho doctor. White did not see Dick, as witness had told tho formor that ho was driving the latter to see the doctor.

This concluded tho caso for the defence. . . H '

Mr. Myers, addressing tho jury, empliasis<xl the point raised in his opening sncecli, that this was a case of mistaken identity. A verdict of not gnilt.v would not- bo a reflection on the plaintiff, it would not indicate that lio had wilfully made statements tliat were not accurate. The ranger was' mistaken, and had jumped to the conclusion that White was the man wlio had thrown tho stone which injured him, simply becausfi he saw "Wliito going ur> the road before the assault occurred. After a retirement of about threequarters of an hour tlie jurv returned a vcrdict of not guilty, and the accused was discharged.

COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE

A TOWN CLERK IN TROUBLE

Mr. S. E. M'Cartby, S.M., ol' Napier, occupied tho bench at yesterday's sitting of the Magistrate's Court, and hoard the following cases: — A young man named James Allan Webster, who till recently was town clerk to the Upper Hutt Town Board, appeared to answer three charges of theft of moneys amounting to JEI7U 18s., the property of the Upper Hutt Town Board. The charges were as follow:— (1) On May 26 he did commit theft of £126 155.: (2) about August 20, theft of £oU; (3) about April 20, theft of £100. Joseph D. Avery, secretary of the Waldegrave Land l'ark Co., stated that in August, 1915, ho sent £50 by cheque to tho Upper Hutt Town Board on account of rates due by his company. Subsequently witness got a rcceipt for tho amount after having written for it twice.

John B. Finlay, secretary of the Upper Hutt Township Land Co., Ltd., stated that on April 20, 1916, he sent a cheque for £100 to the Upper Hutt Town Board for rates due. On May 17 witness forwarded a cheque for £26 IBe., being balanco of rates due. Ho received receipts for the amounts, but could not remember by whom the receipts were signed. Trie principal witness, James Ward, Audit Inspector lit. the employ of tho Audit Department, Wellington, stated that he had made ah inspection of the accounts of the Upper Hutt Town Board, and had found that amounts totalling £207'65. 6d. had been received, but had not been accounted for. Against that Webster must bo allowed £5 18s., thus making a net deficiency of £201 Bs. 6d. When accused was confronted with the deficiencies in detail he admitted quite frankly that he had not accounted for the moneys and had given receipts for same, but that they were not official ones and that similar receipts were to be found in the drawer of his table. When accused-had admitted: his transgressions ho was quite frank and open about the matter, and gave all the information lie could. No attempt, other than the omissions, had been made to falsify the books. To Mr. J. S. Barton (accused's solicitor) : Accused made no attempt to falsify the books at. all. _ Ho had kept a record of the deficiencies and placed them at my disposal. Without this I could not have arrived at the total so quickly. Many of the smaller amounts are quite likely due to carelessness and error. Nothing further has been discovered.

John G. Marshall, a furniture manufacturer, carrying on business in Adelaide lload, stated that on March 6, 1916, lie received an order from accused for furniture valued at £47 which was sent to the Upper Hutt. On may 6 accused presented a, cheque to witness for £100 drawn on the Hutt Land Company. In return witness gave him a cheque for £53.

Evidence was also given by Peter Robertson, chairman of the Upper Hutt Town Board, Detective Mason, and Constable J. W. M'Holm, stationed at the Upper Hutt. On being formally charged acoused pleaded' guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail was allowed in the sum of £100 and one surety of £100. MISCELLANEOUS CASES, Police cases as follow were also dealt with:— . ' » ...For insobriety, Francis Gilbcrtson was fined 205., in default throe days' imprisonment. _ Joseph M'Grath pleaded not guilty to disorderly conduct on Lambton Quay while he was intoxicated. The evidence was against him, however, and he wits convicted and discharged. . For being an idlo and disorderly person, in that ho* did habitually consort with reputed thieves, John Millanta was sent to prison for a month. Gershoum Simmons (on remand) appeared to answer two charges of having caused actual bodily harm to John Marshall and Reginald Pierre. A further remand was granted till November 22, bail being allowed as before.

CIVIL BUSINESS. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Damages amounting to £127 Is. were claimcd by I'. W. Lamb, of Pohangina, against L. Cloako,. carrier, of Lower Hutt, before Mr..L. G. Reid, S.M. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. T. Young for defendant. Tho facts of the ease wero that in May la6t plaintiff entrusted his furniture to defendant to be carried from Wellington to Pohangina. Whilst the motor-lorry was' negotiating Paekakariki Hill it overturned, with the result that the furniture was seriously damaged, and incidentally the lorry _ and driver were injured. Plaintiff claimed that defendant was an insurer of goods as a common carrier. For the defence the amount of damages was . disputed, and it was also denied that defendant was a common carrier. It was claimed that the transac- ; toin constituted a special contract, and also that the liability of common carriers did not apply to tho present case. His Worship reserved Ills decision.