MAGISTRATES COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 9 August 1932, Page 3

MAGISTRATES COURT

GREYMOUTH SITTING. - GREYMOUTH, August 9. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday- before Mi' W,, Meldi-um, S.M., the business dealt with infcluded: —

Atter./pted Suicide. James Finlay, Runanga, was charged with attempting to commit suicide at Runanga on August 6. Defendant pleaded guilty and elected to be with summarily. The Senior-Sergeant said the accused seized ‘ a table-knife and inflicted an injury on his throat, partly severing his wind-pipe Be had been in a depressed state of mind for some time. ,- • : j- - Defendant was convicted anduorv dered to come up for •sentence/i.iiiiif' called upon within twelve months'

Procuring A n Offence. Timothy'. Murphy and Arthur Leslie Owen, who , did not appear, were each charged that on June 3, 1932, they did procure the commission of an offence of John Sweetman, who, being a person other than the licensee of the Commercial Hotel, Nelson; Creek, did supply liojuor to defendants, during prohibited hours: v Jessie Boyle stated that she wa.V a passenger in a car with defendants. jAt Nelson Creek, the two defendants left the car and procured liquor from the' .Commercial Hotel. • This was some time' after 10 p. m: Constable E. J. C. Hav gave evidence that he was in Court when John Sweetman was! convicted for supplying liquor to..djje two defendants: l:[ Defendants were each coiivicted and fined 5/- with costs 15/- and witness’ expenses 4/6.

Failing to Report. ■Tames Dunn did ndt appear t > answer a charge that; being in charge of a motor lorry, which was involved in an accident' causing injury to one John Dunn, he did not report the accident. .Constable Houston gave evidence that the accident .'occurred and that it was not reported; He interv.ewed defendant a. few: days after the • accident,: but defendant refused t. sry anything about it. Defendant was convicted and fio”d £1 with costs 13/- and witness’ expenses 2/6.. v

Dangerous Driv;ng. Isaac Kitchin (Mr A. H. lV.tcr.Acn). Bupanga, was- changed, chat op June 26, he dvj-drive .aT'rtto:fco , ’- , iis in a imv> ner r which, -ihavmg regard to all the' circumstances of the. case, was dangerous to the ' public, ort the Grey--mauth-Runanga main, road. He was. further cHaipged wifh negligent .4riv-.' in or.. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The Senior-Sergeant, said that' the charges arose dut of an accident which took place on • the main road at Goal Creek sHortly after midnight, between a motbr ; lorry owned by lyan Scott of Runanga, and a motor-bus, loaded with passengers, and driven by defendant. The lob By was stationary on the .side of the road’, but had no lin-hts; as they Ibid failed. The force of the impact hunipeH the lorry about forty feet. Both vehicles were damaged. Mr Scott;,'driver of the lorry, was knocked unddnscious, and a lady passenger, seated next to the driver in the bus, Was/ injured. Negligence was alleged firstly/' because it was epnsidered that defendant should .have seen the loiTy. ’Wlrich was a large one. and . secondly, because there was no ercuse for his .not seeing ;t. If he did not ’ see the lorry , until too late to swerve, then big lights must have been faulty, provided he was keeping a good look out. The fact that there was a passenger seated on the right of defendant . in-' the bus, was a breach of the / regulations

a- ;,i •. .; /-_ : Endehcc' was given on these lines. Mr Paterson said he did not propose to call evidence. That given by the witnesses for" the prosecution was . sufficient for the defence. The plan, prepared by Constable Hay could notbe admitted, as it had*.been drawn up after measurements had been , ( taken on the day following the accident. There had been rain, probably have been obliterated. Tiierp was. evidence that it was a bad nighD and that visibility tvas not good, and that the lorry had no lights- showing:’ The bus had been going only at 25 m.p.h., a A'Gi'y reasonable'.speed on that, road, and the driver did the, best thing in the "interests of fthe passengers, by applying the brakes, and hot' attempting to swerve. There was/also the evidence of passengers in thd hiw that, the lorry Was standing' in 'the/ •middle of the road. ''';'. ’ ." , Jfl/e S.M. said itXffld not - matter' vihether the lorry Ws ; in' the' centre-o-r side of thhl'road. IQf tt -should have linen visib’e to the drive? if his bus had reasonable lights, in sufficient time for him to avoid an accident. Acciording to the regulations a driver ! should have such control of his Vehicle' as will] allow him to phll _ up' withm half the .distance of visibility. 1 Thb' fact that the road ivas not in the best' of order .as the result of the rain . was all the more reason aaTiv he shou d • drive at a more safe speed. DeffeMj'.; apt would he convicted and fined' £2 on the ’first charee with £l/2/- '-Court costs and £l/19/2 witness’s Expenses and would be convicted-'-irithotit penalty on the second charge.