MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 23383, 28 September 1939, Page 12

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28. (Before Mr .T. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment, with costs, was awarded plaintiffs in the following cases: Donald Reid and Co. Ltd. v. Daniel Harland, 16s, costs only; Napier Motors Ltd. v. William Eric M'Farlane, £2 7s 9d, goods supplied; Edward John Allen v. John Richard Hall (Waikonaiti), £4 11s, damages to motor vehicle; Singer Sewing Machine Company v. Lydia Walsh, .£24, goods supplied: Otago Hotel Employees’ Union v. B. Pol worth, £1 16s 4d, union dues otfiug. CAR’S CAREER INTO SHOPS. A crash by a motor car that caused damage to three shops near the intersection of Princes and Dowling streets on October 22, 1937, had its outcome in a substantial claim brought by the owner of the shops, Kate Thompson, of

Amberley, against George Joseph Errlngton, the driver of the car, and Charles H. Tucker and Co. Ltd. Mr C. J. Rawlinson represented the plaintiff, Mr E. J. Anderson appeared for the defendant Errington, and Mr A. N. Haggitt represented Tucker and Co. Mr A. J. Jeavons watched proceedings on behalf of the occupiers of three shops that were damaged—W. J. Thomson (seedsman), Annie and Mary M'lntyre (confectioners), and S. E. Ferguson Ltd. (opticians). The statement of claim was that Errington’s motor car was proceeding north along Princes street towards its intersection with Dowling street. A lorry driven by an employee of Tucker and Co. commenced to make a' righthand turn in an easterly direction on the intersection. It was alleged that both vehicles were being driven in an unskilful and reckless manner, and that Errintgon’s car was so driven that it mounted the footpath in Princes street and struck the shops owned by tho plaintiff. It was further alleged that the damage was caused by the negligence of either both or one of the defendants. The amount involved in the claim was £66 16s Bd.

Mr Haggitt said early in proceedings that there appeared to be no evidence to justify action against Tucker and Co. H» submitted that the company was clearly entitled to a nonsuit, and he made this application.

Mr llawlinson admitted that the case against the company was not strong, though Errington maintained that the driver of the company’s lorry was to blame, and this was a case (under the circumstances) in which the plaintiff was bound to have the company joined as a defendant. Evidence was heard and the case was proceeding this afternoon.