MAYOR’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2250, 23 July 1870, Page 2

MAYOR’S COURT.

This Dat, (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., 8.M., and F. Fulton, Esq., J.P.) DRUNKENNESS, Alice Hawley was fined *2os, with the alternative of a week’s imprisonment, and John Sullivan was mulcted in a similar amount for drunkenness and indecency. VAGRANCY. Annie Hamilton, charged with having no visible lawful means of support, was remanded for eight days. NEGLIGENT DRIVING. Carmichael v. Finch, and Finch v. Carmichael, were cross charges of negligent driving, arising out of the coach accident at the East Taieri on the 12th inst. Carmichael v. Finch was heard first, but by a subsequent arrangement between counsel, both cases were treated as one. Mr Smith appeared for Carmichael, and Mr Harris for Finch. According to Carmichael’s account, he was driving at the time of the accident, at the rate of 5 miles an hour —ordinary pace. About 100 yards before he reached the team of horses driven by the defendant, he observed that he occupied the middle of the road, and beckoned and called upon him to move out of the way, but no heed was taken of either warning. He did not slacken his pace, thinking he would be able to get clear safely, nor did ho attempt to pull up until within fifty yards of defendant's dray. He could not however, stay his horses in time, and his leaders swerving, caused the capsizing of the coach. The defence, as stated by Mr Harris, was this. That portion of the Bast Taieri road where the accident occurred, had been lately heavily metalled, and the traffic had caused two ruts to be made in the road. Into one of these en the day in question the defendant’s team had got, and all his endeavors to get them out proved unavailing. When he saw the coach coming on, he beckoned the driver to slacken his horses’ speed, or stop till he was able to get his team out, but instead of doing so he drove on at the same pace, the consequence being a collision and the capsizing of the coach. The defendant’s evidence was to the effect that the ruts wore seven inches deep, and that had Carmichael driven at a slower pace the accident would lr*vc been avoided. In both these assertions he was supported by the testimony of a passenger by the coach on the day in question, a man named McKinlay. On the other hand Carmichal denied the existence of the ruts, and on Mr Smith asking to call rebutting evidence, Mr Harris raised objections. After nearly an hour’s argument, the Bench discovered that the course of proceedings was illegal, and dismissed both actions without prejudice.