MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22458, 1 October 1936, Page 13

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY. OCTOBER 1. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs, was given by default in the following cases :—Frederick H. Haig v. Percy Powell (Mosgiel), £B, goods supplied; Haggitt, Duthie, and Kinmont Ltd. v. John Carlisle Beale (Kimbell), £ll 2s, balance of valuation fee; Butterfields Ltd. v. William Paris (Port Chalmers), £3 17s 9d, balance owing on goods supplied. BREACHES OF AWARD. Francis Albert Dotting (Mr C. B. Barrowclough) was proceeded against by the Inspector of Awards, who claimed a penalty of £2O for a breach of the Dunedin and Oamaru butchers’ award.—Judgment for £l, with costs, was awarded the plaintiff. For failing to keep a record of the hours worked and wages paid to assistants, Dotting was fined £3, with costs. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. F. C. Simonsen proceeded against W. J. Bowker on a judgment summons, claiming £4 16s. The judgment debtor did not appear, and the Magistrate made an order for payment of the amount, in default five days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as 10s a w r eek was paid. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. The Magistrate gave his reserved decision in the case in which Robert David Donaldson claimed from Archibald William Douglass (Waikouaiti) £46 3s 5d as damages resulting from a motor collision which occurred at the corner of Hanover and Castle streets. Mr C. Mowat appeared for the plaintiff and Mr E. J. Anderson for the defendant. After reviewing the evidence, His Worship said he was of the opinion that the plaintiff was travelling at a somewhat higher speed than ho should have been approaching the intersection, but the plaintiff was the author of his own injury. The magistrate had already pointed out that the plaintiff’s acount of the collision was an impossible one. His vision to the right was impeded the telephone box, and it was doubtful what area of visibility existed between tho box and the shop. The plaintiff was approaching an important traffic road, when his particular regard should have been to any traffic from tho right, and there was no other traffic to occupy his attention, yet his own account, which the magistrate had to reject, was that after glancing through the telephone box avenue he did not look to his right again until on the tram rails. If he had been keeping a proper look-out and making a proper allowance for interference with his vision by the telephone box he should have seen any approaching traffic in sufficient time to obviate danger. Judgment would, therefore, be given for the defendant, with costs.