MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 17 January 1929, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, JANUARY 17th. (Before YY. Meldrum, Esq., 5.31.) LICENSING ACT. On charges of being unlawfully on licensed promises after hours offenders were dealt with as follows: Two offenders (Keller’s Hotel). One ordered to pay costs 10s and the other was fined 2!)s with costs 10s. Three offenders (-Masonic Hotel) were convicted and each ordered . to pay costs 10s. Three offenders (Marquis of Lome Hotel). Each were convicted and ordered to pay costs 10s. Two offenders (Central Hotel) were convicted. One was ordered to pay costs l().s and the other was fined 40s and costs 10s. Two offenders (Empire Hotel, Kaniori) were ordered to pay costs 10seach. One offender (Masonic Hotel) was convicted and ordered to pay costs 10s. .MAINTENANCE ORDER. For failure to pay a maintenance order, arrears being £lO 17s Gd, YY. M. Harcourt (Waiho) was sentenced to one month, seven days being allowed for payment. .Mr Murdoch appeared for applicant. DEBT CASES. Stephens Bros. (Mr Eleock) v. A. Grcaiioy, claim £7 9s 9d. Judgmentfor plaintiff with costs 30s (id. Stephens Bros. (Mr Murdoch) v. A. .Jones, judgment summons £ls 18s llti. Order made for payment of above with £1 Is costs at the rate of 29s per month, in default one month. A. \V. Dowell (.Mr Eleock) v. P. A. MeYlinii, judgment summons £22 7s 9d. Order made for payment <J' £2 per month, with counsel’s tee Cl Is, in default one month. • CHARGES DISMISSED. Police v. YYilliam Delaney (Mr Hannan) and Horace T. Parry (Mr Murdoch). Both were charged wit!) driving a moLor car at a pace dangerous to the public through Kninara Borough ; and also lighting in a public place at Hillmans on the KmnaraHokitika road. Both pleaded not guilty. Sergt. King said the two defendants were charged under tlu* .Motor Regulations. The only evidence they were calling were the statements made hv tlic two defendants immediately after the incidents happened. They had no other evidence. Ylr Ylurdoch held as a matter of public policy that the police had no right to make use of these statements against the parties affected without the consent of the parties themselves. He claimed privilege. He warned the Sergant that must go to the very highest tribunal. He would leave it to his common sense as to what acti m lie would take. He thought" the case should be left to tbe parties themselves. His YYorship said if two men fight in a public place it -'brought them under the Police Offences Act. He was prepared to hoar the evidence. Sergeant King gave evidence that* he took a statement from H. T. Parry on the day following the occurrence. He produced the statement., which was read. Constable Doeliertv gave evidence that at 2 a.m. on the night of the occurrence Parry called at the Police Station and stated he had been assaulted at Dillmans. Later Delaney came to the Police Station and made a statement (produced and read). Sergeant King said lie had no other evidence. Mr Murdoch asked that the, charge he dismissed. His YYorship said the police must put- their witnesses in the box to he cross-examined. 'Uum’o was no evidence before him. The charges would be dismissed.

COLLISION OHAIIGE. Police v. L. Buchanan (Mr Murdoch) a. charge that when driving a motor car at the intersection of Hampden and Sewell Streets, he did fail to give way to a motor car approaching on his right and further that he failed to keep to the left of the centre of the road. A plea of not guilty was entered. Sergt. King stated the charge aroso out of a collision at the intersection 01 'Sewell and Hampden Streets on the morning of Jan. Ist. Dr Buchanan was travelling up Hampden Street from Tailored Street going towards Fitzherliert Street, while Ronald L. Olson was proceeding up Sewell Street towards the north. Olson was therefore on the doctor s right and the latter should have given him tho right of way. Ronald L. Olson gave evidence that he was the holder of a motor driver’s .certificate. He left Hokitika on Jan. Ist. travelling up Sewell Street. Ho passed Kir wan’s garage at about Id miles an hour. Ho first saw Buchanan’s car when he passed Kirwan’s garage. It was drizzling when lie loft the Soldiers’ Hall, about 1.20 a.m. After passing the garage ho saw the car coming up Hampden Street, it struck witness’ ear on the loft side. Witness kept straight on, thinking lie was ahead of tho other car. The front pari of the other car struck witness’ car and his car was thrown over, 'flic doctor was travelling on the right side of the road. There wer five in the car, two girls and two hoys besides himself. His sister was rather badly injured. Witness sounded his horn coining to the intersection. He did not hear any other horn. To Mr Murdoch—His age was 17. j years. He had been driving for about 18 months. When driving up Sewell Street lie kept looking straight ahead till lie got to the corner. Kirwan’s garage is built right oil the street at the corner. He remembered saying to Dr Buchanan that it was a pure accident. Sydney Breeze gave evidence that lie was in Olson’s car on the morning of the accident. He was in the back seat in the centre. The windscreens were up. Visibility was fair. Olson was travelling up Sewell Street at 15 to 20 miles an hour. After passing the Convent School he looked towards Revel I .“street and saw nothing coming. After passing the garage saw the light of a car coming up Hampden Street from Revell Street. Olson’s car reached the intersection first. Thought the other car would pass behind-.them till their car was hit and lifted, then coming hack on its wheels again. Their driver sounded his horn but be did. not hear the other, ear’s horn. The Doctor’s car appeared on the right side of the road. Sergt. King gave evidence of visiting the scene about an hour after, and of taking measurements of the surroundings. From the centre of the Hampden Street to a heap of glass from Olson’s car was 27ft. When he arrived on the scene Olson’s car was on the north-west corner of Sewell and Hamp. den Streets. The damage to Olson’s car was a smashed . windscreen and hood, and steering wheel. The hack left hand wheel was smashed. The doctor’s left hand dumb iron and front spring was bent. The doctor’s was facing almost due south. The steering gear and right lamp was out of order. To Air Murdoch—He knew that Olson’s car had been shifted before lie arrived on the scene. It. was worse than a drizzly night. ■ There was a bad visibility. Henry L. Buchanan gave evidence that he had a motor-car and license to drive for 14 years. He drove quite a lot. He had never before January lsi had a collision with a pedestrian or (tar. On January Ist about midnight he had been at a children’s, party and bad taken Dr Baird’s children home and then proceeded up Tain-red Street turning into Hampden Street. There is a brilliant light at Kirwau’s corner. That was the undoubted cause of the accident. He looked across the paddock into Sewell Street, hut saw nothing. The visibility was very had, it being misty. He was travelling 15 to 10 miles, having just turned a sharp angle corner, and lie was approaching the railway crossing. He did not see the other car approaching till he was past the corner and he instinctively swung to the left to endeavour to avoid a collision. It was a pure accident. He swung to the left and he thought Olson’s car hit him. . Swinging round he did not see what happened to the other car. He looked on the affair as an unavoidable accident under the circumstances. -He was in the centre of the road a little to the left. His Worship in giving judgment said on the charge of failure to keep to the left, there was no evidence, and the charge would he dismissed. On the other charge of failure to give way to a car approaching on his right, the question was whether in the present case the regulation applies. The position was that there was a brilliant light at the corner where the garage is built right ‘out to the street front. There seems to he no doubt that the onus is on the driver to see if any vehicle was approaching on. his right. The circumstances in the present ease made it exceedingly difficult to see i another ear was approaching on his right, but there was a car approaching. He held there was a technical breach of the regulations but it was not one that a penalty should be inflicted. Defendant would be convicted and ordered to pay costs 30s.