TROUBLE OVER CAR

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 65, 10 December 1926, Page 7

TROUBLE OVER CAR

ALLEGED BLOCKING OF HEARING COUNSEL AND JUDGE AT VARIANCE Dominion Special. Auckland, December 9. One day in November of last year Mr. John' P. Robinson, of Kawhia, brought his motor-car to Auckland and left it at Messrs. W. J. Rushton and Company’s for repairs and sale. He handed over the car to a youth who said he was the principal of the firm. The owner said he would return in a few weeks to find out the result of the sale. For the next few weeks the youth thoroughly enjoyed himself with this car, and succeeded in damaging it to the extent of £6O. Upon the owner’s return he was informed by the firm that his car had not been left with them. Inquiries soon elicited the information that finally led to the arrest of the youth. He was admitted to probation for two years, and ordered to make restitution. The matter did not rest there, however, for in October of this year Messrs. Rushton and Company were notified that Robinson was making a clainr against them for £2OB damages through negligence of one of their ser vants. A writ was issued in Hamilton but a change of venue was applied for and granted to Auckland, and the case came before Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court this morning. Mr. P. L. Hoilings appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Goldstine for the defendant. ‘I wish to appose the hearing of tjjis case,” said Mr. Goldstine, "and would point out-that the circumstances leading up to the hearing are somewhat extraordinary.” Counsel said the writ was issued in Hamilton and the summons for a change of venae to Auckland came before Mr. Justice Herdman at Hamilton. His Honour was satisfied that it was -a proper case for a change of venue and accordingly made the order. On the application of Mr. Holliugs it was set down for hearing at the present session at Auckland pro-, viding a fixture could be made. S.even days were granted in which to file the statement of defence. “I received a letter from Mr. Holliugs,” continued counsel, “to the effect that he was going to get a fixture and 1 heard nothing more until I was notified that it was to be taken this morning. No answer was received until this morning, and I am not in a position to proceed with the case. In view of the extraordinary*claim, I notified mv friend on two occasions that I was not readv to proceed, and advised him that it would be unnecessary fo» him to come to Auckland. I submit that it : s unreasonable to expect the case to proceed. . . Mr Holliugs: The plaintiff, his witnesses. and myself have travelled 200 miles His Honour: It does not matter how far vou have travelled. Mr. Rollings: A move to block the trial was foiled in Hamilton, and His Honour: It should not have been brought in Hamilton. The affair took place in Auckland. Mr. Holliugs: I consented to a change of ,venue to Auckland on condition that it be tried this session. _ His Honour: You issued the writ in October, and first of ail you started in the wrong court, and, secondly, it is something that happened eleven months ag Mr. Hollings: I consented to the order. ~ , His Honour ; You could not have refused to consent Mr. Hollings: We have come 200 miles, including 50 miles over a niua road. I don’t know whether Your Honour knows the road from Kawhia to Hamilton, but it is the worst in New Zealand. The plaintiff and his witnesses are here, and I can see the defendant in Court. There is no real reason why the case should not proceed. It will be a short one, taking only two or three hours. . . His Honour: That is not the ques'°Mr. Hollings pointed out that he had ten days to comply with the order, and that he had done so before his time was up. The matter, he contended, was one of a series of attempts to block the case from going to trial. He again referred to the bad road he had come over, and said he did not want to do it again as it involved considerable _ expense and discomfort. The plaintiff was a service car driver, andjluring his absence the service from Kawhia to Hamilton was held up, thus causing considerable inconvenience to the residents.

His Honour; This is an action in which a writ was issued in October claiming for something that occurred in November, 1925. The action was brought in the wrong Court, and that being so it was discretionary with the presiding judge whether the writ should be struck out or a change of venue made. The latter course was followed, and the plaintiff is not entitled to rush the defendant in a case such as this. He had ample notice from the defendant that the case could not go on. and under the circumstances I will adjourn the matter until next session.