MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 22 November 1928, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 22nd

(Before W. Meldrum, Esq., S.M.)

LICENSING ACT

I lie police ciiarged a prohibited person with procuring liquor. Fined 20s and costs 10s.

A similar charge was made against another offender. Fined j£2 and costs 10s.

Three prohibited persons were charged with being found on licensed premises (Commercial Hotel) having endeavoured to enter from the beach. One defendant appeared and pleaded not guilty. The others did not appear. Facli were convicted and fined os and costs 10s each.

Another prohibited person was charged with procuring liquor. Fined 20s and costs 10s. ARMS ACT.

James Gard.vne was charged with having possession of a firearm witho. having registered it. Fined 5s and costs 10s. Patrick V. Rasmussen was charged with having possession of a firearm unregistered in Grey district, and with discharging a firearm at Tiarihari without proper cause. No appearance. Fined os and costs 12s, and lined 5s and costs 10s. DEFENCE ACT. Austin F. Dowling was charged with failure to attend two parades. Fined 5s and costs 10s on one charge, to pay costs 10s on the second. Ernest N. M. Christianson was similarly charged, one parade. Fined 5s and costs 10s. Walter Huxford was similarly charged. Ordered to pay costs 10s. Tims. A. Jones, a similar charge. Fined os and costs 10s. Claude J. Lincoln, two similar charges. Fined 7s and costs 10s and ordered to pay costs 10s. Frank Stewart, similarly charged, was fined 5s and costs 10s. Police v. W. D. Delaney and IT. T. Parry, two charges of assault. Mr Murdoch applied for an adjournment owing to the illness of Air Hannan, defending counsel. Adjourned 'for one month. BOROUGH BYE-LAWS. The Borough Inspector, W. CO"-’ (Mr Park) charged Edward R. Brown with turning a corner in a motor car on the wrong side. lined 5s and costs 20s (id. DEBT CASES. Hokitika Harbour Board (Mr Park) v. N. S. Wilson, L. Wilson and J. E. Spencer, claim £6B os lOd. Judgment for plaintiff, that against the two latter defendants separate estate, with costs 06 2s. DEFENDED CLAIM. Frank Wall (Mr Murdoch) v. Lambton and Co. and Samuel Francis Orr, claim £lO fis Id.

Mr Applegarth, director of the defendant company applied for an adjournment, but this was opposed by plaintiff and his Worship decided to proceed with the hearing. Frank Wall, settler, Koiterangi, gave evidence that he was proceeding from Koiterangi on the road to Hokitika. Witness was 53 feet on the Kanieri river bridge when they saw a lorry approaching. They put on the brakes. Skidded some distance, but had probably stopped when the car was struck by the lorry. It was broad daylight. The lorry was travelling 10 to 15 miles. Considered it was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Orr was driving the lorry for Lambton and Co. No careful driver would have done what the driver of the lorry did there. To Mr Applegarth—The car skidded some 16 yards. The lorry was about two lengths from the bridge when witness was on the bridge. The loriy bit the car and broke’ a 4 x 4 post of the bridge. He was not driving the

car. Margaret Wall, wife of a brother of plaintiff, living at Koiterangi was coming from Kokatahi to Hokitika. Victor Wall was driving. Approaching the bridge saw the lon.\ approaching. Their car was nearest the bridge. Had pulled up slower to approach the bridge. They wore on the bridge when the lorry came round the corner. Both were going slow when the impact took place. To Mr Applegarth —Heard Frank AVall tell his son to put on the brakes. 1-Ie said they were on hard. It apappeared as if the driver of the lorry did not put on his brakes coming up trie approach to the bridge. Neither car nor lorry was travelling fast when the collision took place. Victor Henry Wall deposed he was driving his father’s motor car, coming to Hokitika on 9th July. Approaching the bridge as be was entering the bridge be saw the lorry about two lengths off the bridge. Had slowed down to about 12 miles to get on the bridge. Put the brakes on when he sa w "tbo lorry driver was coming on. Witness was then 53 feet on the bridge. There was nothing to stop the lorry stopping, if he had seen the car. Both cars were moving very slowly when they met. Witness was on his proper side as far as he could get. It was impossible to pass on the bridge. It appeared as if the lorry driver did not see them and came on. l 0 Mr Applegarth—The lorry driver did not try to pull up. Then witness jammed on the brakes. Witness was on the bridge. . . This was the case for plaintiff. For the defence evidence was given by Thomas Freitas, who gave evidence that be was on the lorry with Orr When they got to the bridge they were there as soon as the car. Orr had stopped and was getting into reverse when the car which was travelling about -0 miles, struck the lorry. The car was a good bit on the bridge when the brakes were put on. The lorry had stopped when the car struck

it. The lorry and car entered the bridge about the same time. To Mr Murdoch—Applegarth -saw him last Saturday about giving evidence that day. The lorry was on. the bridge first. The lorry could not travel more than 8 to 10 miles as part oif one typo was off. The car did not slacken down coming on the bridge'. Samuel Francis Orr gave evidence that lie was driving the lorry on the morning of the collision. Passing through Kanieri three feet of tlie back tyre came off and had to bo cut off. Coming on to Kanieri river bridge, just as lie was about touching the bridge, Wall’s motor car came on to the bridge. Witness put on the foot brake, and had stopped the lorry,.and was attempting to put the gear into reverse. The car came on, and when about 10 feet away swung across the bridge and struck the upright of the bridge. Had it not been for the rails the car would have gone into the river which was in high flood. The car skidded for a considerable distance. To Mr Murdoch—There was a sharp bend approaching the bridge from Kokatahi. He was correct in his statements, The collision was a pure accident due to greasy nature of the bridge. His Worship, giving judgment, stated there was a simple fact to dd\ cide which vehicle was on the bridge first and therefore in possession of the bridge. He liad no doubt that the motor car was first on the bridge and had travelled 53 feet before the lorry endeavoured to enter on if. Tlie fact that the car had travelled past 16 out out of 19 standards on the bridge, while the lorry had only reached the third standard. He liad no doubt on tlie evidence in finding for the plaintiff. Judgment was given for £l6 6s Id, with costs £9 14s.