MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 26 July 1932, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREYAIOUTH, Julj 26. At the Magistrate’s Court, Greymouth. yesterday Mr W. Meldrum, S.M:, dealt with the following business : ' separation. Nellie Hodgson (Mr M. James), proceeded against her husband William James Hodgson (Air T. F. Brosnan), making, application for separation, maintenance, anj guiardiansh p orders, in respect of herself, and her two children,' alleging cruelty, and failure to maintain. ( . *"■ . The S.M, stated that the application was grounded on '-persistent cruelty and failure ,to maintain. The second charge failed, because it- had / been shown that defendant bad given practi-. cally all his earnings to Iris wife. Persistent cruelty had not. been proved and there was nothing to ‘ corroborate her evidence, which was denied by her husband. In a letter to her husband, dated March 13, of this year, complainant showed that she hrid a lot of love for him. It appear, d that the Landing was not a lively place, and she apparently preferred 1 to li\Ve In Greymouth. It was, however, the duty of a u'ife to live with her husband. There was little to say against the husband. He might be quick tempered, .but <so‘also might be the wife. From her evidence in the witness box, she could -apparently hcild her own. The complaint failed, and would therefore be. dismissed. BREACH OF TRAFFIC LICENSES. Reserved judgment was delivered by the Magistrate jVi the cases' brought against John'. Saunders, and Frank Faulkner (Mr F. A. Kitcliingham), by Traffic Inspector Albert Edward Sloss (Mr T. F. Brosnpn), and heard on May 23; • V

The 1 informations were taken in respect of the motor vehicle Reg. No. 121-979, as a test case. Tire charges against Saunders an,d Faulkner were “That at Greymouth. on May 10, 1932„. on the Main Highway, Mack ay Street, they did; operate- a hravy motor vehicle ; (Matron Rl&ad King, - 1 RegisNo. 121-979) for the carriage of passengers, such heavy- motor vel'ide not being : licensed for the carriage of’goods and passengers, in contravention of Clause .16, Regulation 9, of th> Heavy Motor -Vehicles’ Regulations, 1932.’’ There were, three buses, andj six informations had bten laid. The' Inspector -desired a conviction so that lie could institute a civil action against the owners, for the recovery' of the,, licensing fe :<s.

In giving his decision, the S.M. stated that the charges were laid under Section 9, sub-division 16, of the Heavy Motor Vehiclels Regulations, 1932. The Magistrate rtelad the sub-Section, and added that the case turned on the definition,' as given in the intsrpretatron of the words “permit,” and “ownhr.”. In the. present case, the. decision turned definitely on the word, “operate,” that definition limited in the present case, to the word “p rnrit.” The question was whether the' two defendants, did permit the particular motor vehicle to be used, 1 or driven■ on any work. If they did so permit its ''use, then they came within !Section 9, Sub-Section 1. There- was no question as to the owne. ship of the vehicle. This particular ve-hioL was sold under hire purcliasie agreement in July 1932, to Cecil Kennedy. motor bus proprietor, of Greymouth. It'-was sold on terms, \an.d under a Bill of Sale, the ownership of the bus being in the names of John Saunders and Frank Faulkner, until • all pay-. ■ merits -in connection with the vehicle were made. It was admitted that n'l payment had not been made and the legal owners, wetfe still the- defendants. The question was whether the •particular use- of the vehicle by the purchaser, without a license having been first taken out, would bring V fondants within the meaning -of the Section. There was a clause in' the Bill of Sale which provided that • th? purchaser shall pay all license' fees due in connection with the vehiclv A further clause gave the • -.vendors the power to determine the Bill • of Sale, bv -retaking possession of tlie vehicle,; if a breach of any of the' covenants-, during the continuance of the Bill. Sab* .occurred-. Admittedly, there was a breach of -covenant, i" non-payment of th© license fees, and admittedly that was known to the defendants. The previous quarter’s foes liad.i.heen-paid by them, and tlfev had received a claim for the- current quarter. They therefore knew that the licensing foes had not been paid. Tli© question was whether defendants’ failure to act uiufer. the t provisions of the Bi'l of Salle, amounted to an admission on their part for Kennedv to go on using th© motor vehicle. It •had been said for defendants that if they were- held liable all owners of motor vehicles, soiling undier tire conditions of hire purchase agreement would become' liable all over thi>> colony, for vehicles sold in such mannet. Even if that were so, the Magistrate said that he did not see that it .would affect the decision; The regulations had been" brought into force to protect local bodies against damage, by. vehicles, on the roads. And-the only means local bodi-s h’d. for-making repairs, was through the collection of licensing fee« f om 0”-”-ers of vehicles doing the damn ere. If a vendor sold to a nerson, who was not able to pay. then that vendor was taking certain risks, and it would nrobahly mean that rsooiier or later, lie would be called upo” under the ' regulations to make good the nnw»nt of the license fees. The law was made necessary through daring's m-do by, motor vehicles, and tlrv should . ” the damage done by the user. / Tbo (4.M, ref rred -.to a case, haviirr hearing on the case ruler rrv'« : doraW> n and stowing the meaning of the word

• \-. “permit.” That Otis's (quoted), could be included in the present case.‘ The defendants had the right, under the Bill of Sale, to retake possession wilder the bread! of covenant, as , the' bailee had not paid the license _ fees, ■go long as they had taken no steps to enforce the payment-of the licensing fees, they permitted the' vehicle fO'lm operated contrary to the Act. He would convict defendants, but at is was .’thle first oase -of its kind in ’New Zealand, and was brought forward as a test, a fine of only £l, with 10s costs' would be imposed in eadh case. The question of the Ownership of the Republic bus, was adjourned for one week, for proof of ownership. /, : UNION HOTEL THEFT. Charles William Home, a salesman was charged that on the 18th July he stole £2 11s lid on money, two' shi.rts, 'two collars, four 'handkerchiefs fend a tie, the property of James Les--lie Guy, a hoarder at the Union Hotel. • Detective H. C. Murcli conducted' the prosecution and the accused ednducted his own defence. Detective Murcli said that tlie facts of the case were that on July 18, the accused called at the Unidfi Hotel I’d was given a loom alto' occupied by the complainant. CoinphVinant had gone out, and on his feth'r.ii had 'found the money and articles missing. !)-. f endant had boon located a't Hdkitika and had the articles iii liis pos'session, hut not the money, wliieli lie denied taking. Defendant was convicted and fined ‘CI, with witnesses expenses 10s, and was ordered, to pay £3 2s 9d to Janies I eslie Guy, in default 21'"' dhysV' in Greynlduth prison';