MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 23 January 1930, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, JAN. 23rtf. (Before W. Meldrum, Esq., S.M.) ' DEBT CASES. ■Jeffries and Go. (Mr Elcock) v. T. E. Wells, claim £3 6s lOd. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 25s 6d. \V,;i .Delbridge (Mr Elcock) v. A. Woolhouse, balance claim £3 Ids. Judgmentifor plaintiff with costs 3/s 6d. ,\Y'. Jeffries and Co; (Mr Ekock) v. E. A. Janies, claim Ids. Judgment, for plaintiff with costsi 10s. J. J. Crovvle (Mr Murdoch) v. John Singer, for order of ejectment. Order made for possession by Feb. 20th. and judgment for £4 rent with costs 41s. UNSEEMLY BEHAVIOUR , Police v. G. J. Comport (Mr Murdoch). A charge, of unseemly behaviour’was admitted, and one of "obscene language was withdrawn. Fined, 20s and costs 12s. WILFULLY OBSTRUCTING. Charged with wilfully on a footpath in Weld St., J. Demipsey and G. Kelly were, fined 5 and costs 12s. . .. :■ .... LICENSING OASES. - An offender charged with,, being on licensed premises. (Post Office Hotel) was fined 203 and costs 10sr v. i ■ Two offenders, charged i with being found unlawfully..after, hours in the Club Hotel were,, .ordered; to pay cost* 10s each, .• ». Tv*'), offenders (Commercial Hotel) one to pay. costs 108, the other fined 20s and costs 10s, . v 1 Another offender (Masonic Hotel) was ordered to pay;costs 10s. An offender (Dunedin Hotel), to pay* cpsts 10s. ■ ;

•> An offender (Masonic Hotel). Fined 20s and costs 10s. An. offender’.(Dunedin Hotel). Fined 20s and';costs"los. .*. CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE. Police v. E.. M. Mansom, claim , for maintenance order,: £22 10s; Adjourn-ed'-for three: months. - ■£ WANDERING CATTLE

'Borough Inspector (Mm Para) v. J. P. Coulson,; allowing a horse to wander. Fined 10s and, costs 31s. , game v. T. ~MoJiihan,* l horse. Fined lOs antJ costs 31s.>. Jrt . Four, charges of alldwing, cattle to wander at South Spit were made against James Kelly. Mr Park for informant and-Mm Sellers'for defendant who pleaded mot gnilty. Evidence was given 'by Messrs Holley and Willetts and Kelly Jr. His Worship entered a conviction on all. charges. Fined 5s and costs 10s ore each charge, and • £2; 1 2s counsel fee whole, .twp witnesses . 12s each. INCOME TAX RETURN.

. On a charge of failing to make returns of- income tax A. G. Pilkington was fined 40s and costs 31s. /INSULTING LANGUAGE. The Police charged Mary - Walsh* (Mr Sellers) with; using'insulting lan- r gnagp; A plea of guilty was entered. Fined 20s and costs 10s. A COLLISION CHARGE. Police v. Henry Sutherland, a charge of failing tb/stop while in, charge of a car, and allowing another ’ vehicle coming from the right to pass. He pleaded not guilty.'' The charge arose out. of a-collision on race day at the corneroi Stafford and Brittan Streets. t Sergt. King gave evidence that ho visited Stafford Street. He saw a car belonging to Harcourt and Co. and one that defendant had been driving. The defendant’s car had been considera_. damaged. Saw the defendant who gave an explanation of the cause ofi the accident (statement read). \J Henry Sutherland gave, evidence. When he crossed the street he looked, to- right and left. He considered he> Was'safe to cross the road as there was: then no one in sight.' He had partly crossed the road,, and he then saw a. car coming fast from the fight. Witness pulled to the left in an endeavour* to give- room to pass. The ,car struck; his car on the dumb iron,, and his car* turned over on its side.

He was travelling at 12 to 15 mi let* an hour. He took all' reasonable precautions when approaching the 'inter* , section. He had the car under complete control. Considered the], other car was travelling at 30 miles an hour.. When he first saw the car, it was some> two lengths away coming at an excessive speed. Alfred J. Sloss, traffic inspector, saictt [ he visited the scene of the collision.. V He was of opinion that if Sutherland! " ■, was travelling at 10 to 15 miles, then ’< other must have been travelling at; three times the speed to have struck: tue car as he had. If the two carsi had been travelling at an excessive, speed, he would not like to say what, would have happened. If the other , car had been travelling at 15 miles am hour it should naye stopped in 0 to» 10 feet. He knew defendant as a careful and very efficient driver. His Worship said the regulation liadl been made to more easily saddle th* responsibility of a collision. The onwa- r on a driver is to watch his right and - • to give way if necessary, ai\4 to keep, bis car under proper control. HertJ the defendant Was approaching the intersection. He was an experienced ' efficient driver. He saw no car approaching and went on his way. He '' bad apparently got to to the middle of : the road when he saw, a car approach-.. ing. He pulled to his left, and t!» > } other car to the right. It appeared * J that McMullan’s car was travelling at. an unreasonable speed. Under the cir-- l cumstances he did not think Sutherland! 1 was to blame in the. matter. The cause., of the collision was in his opinion the* unreasonable pace that .McMullan wg driving. The charge against Suthor* land wtould be dismissed. • y