MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 4 November 1932, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CASES HEARD :AT HOKITIKA.

FRIDAY NOVEMBER 4th,

In the Magistrate !a Court Hoki. kita the, following cases- were heard before the Magistrate, Mr W.‘ Meldrum, S.M. V- s : • , >/■-

RESERVED JUDGMENT. / The Magistrate gave his reserved judgment in the case heard last Court day, H. Kortegast v. Mercantile and. General Insurance Coy., in which plaaritiff claimed' £l5O being insurance, on his motor'lorry Which'• was-‘exteii-sively damaged by fire near; Ross last April. . , H "

The Magistrate said that the f defence was based uttder ia clause in 'h policy; in .which i r itr7 mas claimed- thai the car was drivenViti a dangerous condition which -resulted ' ih' the fire. In view, of the’ decision of‘Mr Justice Adam 3 in a, similar case he could come to no other dsdisidh than that the cat wias in a dangerous condition. Plaintiff liad admitted that the : flames had burst out when he applied the brakes while negotiating Mitchell’s' HilL Mr Schaef had given evidence to the effect that the oar was faulty. The fact that the footboards wefe warm at the time made the fire all the more easier. The condition in the policy applied in this case, apd judgment would be given for defendant with costs, «*' -.' y :

UNEMPLOYMENT LEVY. Six charges of faring to pay the unemployment levy were preferred . against J. P. Coulson who was con-victed-on each charge and ordered to pay costs on one charge. ; i . 1 . BYEtLAW charges. For cycling without a light W. •E, J. Smith was fined ss.

On a similar charge. A, E. Stephens was fined l 10s and’ costs. . * , A. E. Bentley w n .s charged with breach of bis maintenance order in. respect of his wife and child. The case was adjourned. . "V . Ellen E. 'Patrick (Mr J. A. Murdoch), proceeded l against J. P. Coulsqm (Mr A. B. Elccck) with a- claim: for possession of ia, house", in Gibson Quay, and sought to recover £3B as rent. The Bench allowed defendant a fortnight. to vacate, and gave judgment for plaintiff, less £5 prid, with costs. Judgment for plaintiff by . default was given in the following. case Keenan arid Nanoekivell Ltd., 1 v. Ivin Scott £l2; end costs £2 15s. RAILWAY CROSSING. F. \V. Chestrrinan (Mr Eloock) was charged with crossing a- railway line wb«n R*»me‘ was 2',t ‘ clear.

Mr jior. the, informant, said that defendant had been concerned in an accident before at the railway intersection in Weldi Street, the .-'■ene included ini fc the present charge On August 20th. when the Hokitika-Roes train was - pulling out, the driver, having :.given a warning, whistle saw defendant’s car about 20 yards away, and . blew the whistleagain. Trie train was not going "very fast, but defendant instead of stopping, increased hts speed and crossed the line in front of «the train.

Evidence was given by Thomas Caldwell, of Ross, driver of the tram, William Intemann, a porter, and their evidence stated that at the time there, might have been a slight drizzle, while warning by the red light bad 'been given. v i v.

Defendant saidl that’ he displayed extra care when crossing and after leaving ..sib jßtatitfp &j#ned into Weld Street and was on his right side when he crossed” oVor. H? two engines, but was sure ho v was quite safe in crossing. The Bench said that the where onus lay on the motor"driver, not on the. driver of the train, and defendant hivS undoubtedly crossed when tlie lino was not clear. Defendant was fined £2 and costs.