S. M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, 7 December 1923, Page 2

S. M. COURT.

OTAKI—THURSDAY. (Before .1. Logan .Stout, Esq., N.M.) Excessive Riding. Otaki Borough Council (Mr. Atmoret v - -Tohn N. Cobb.—Charge of riding a motor-cycle within the Borough at a speed dangerous to the public.—No appearance of defendant. -Mr. At more stated tile defendant rode at bO miles an hour on the Kungi--IHU Rend. He was spoken to. and -aid in reply that he was trying his evele. Herbert Cannon; stated that he'was one of the inspectors. Defendant was iiavelling' at .ill miles an hour, going°ut and declined to pull up. but on his return he nulled up. The road was narrow, but there was not much trallie about. Fined £| ami costs 7s lid. and win ness'- expenses ills. Judgnient Summons. , Hislop and Lowry (,\rr. Atinorel v. L. N. Lanchester.—Claim L'lO f, s . tendant said he was unable to pav the iLimunt, his weekiv earning- bein'"- i„adequat e. He was willing to sell his seetinn on .Mill Road, under offer to the Borough Council for £jbii. t,, , lnv . one.—No order. Civil Cases. 'Hie following civil eases weal bv default:

Commission of Taxes v. R. B. \mlcrSO , , L i.daim 10s Id, costs- Ps;Commissio„er '. ,J v. Henry .Nicholson, claim y, S - s LI. nisi s L’gs; I lim 111 i Ssin lie r of v - s - D. Batten, claim ill His hi. ’osl - IPs lid: Commissioner of Taxes H - H. Bills, LIP II- !M, costs ills. / jiy Dm- Bros. v. W. Tubman, claim t “ L>s. costs g'-s ltd: F. c. Wilson v. .1. Bain bridge, claim 10>, costs £] lbs '” l: i’okare llupata v. .1. Bainbridge, claim Li. costs £1 lbs it,l. Motor Repairs. W*. J. Barlow (Mr. Alniore) v. (J. Bird (Mr. Herd) —Claim for 1 <is b<{ for motor-car repairs.

-Mr. A 1 more, on behalf of plaintiff. ”1 outlining his ease said that the 1 transactions had been a verv unsatisi Lact ory one for his client. Defendant's i t;i a Buiek, 1«11 “ model, had broken M and plaint ill' was summoned |„ as . i 'tulain the rrouhle. lie fourul that the crown wheel in the hack axle was ! 1,!1, Hy worn and advised defend:,nt lo ! lake the axle lo Wellington for the ' purpose ill having a new one made, j Defendant' did not follow (hi- advice 1 hut went to Wellington and procured a crown wheel from the Buiek agents, which defendant slated wouhT lit' j ITaintiff told defendant that it was an wise to tit this w 1 1 unless the agents 1 had a.-sured him dial it was a spare Dir a IPI A model. Defendant stated ! 'hat he had that assurance and instrm |ed Mr. Barlow to lit the wheel. It provI ''d ,n be Add of an inch out of uiigti- . meat, and Mr. Barlow phoned the Buh-k ■ agents, who undertook lo take the wheel back if it would not fit. plain I Idl explained the mutter to defendant and again advised defendant to have j;> "heel cast to lit. Defendant fool j isldy disregarded this advice ami pro cured in Wellington, a Maxwell crown wheel, which the sellers offered to bet Lei would lit. Plaintiff objected to lit ling' this wheel but Bird 'insisted and again it proved to l,e useless. The same result happened a third time and jin ally defendant followed tl 1( . original advice am! had a crown wheel made in Wellington. Thi- proved -at ixfaei orv nud tile ear wa- assembled bv j,!a in! iljl Ihe ear was subsequently irndv! away hr delend.ant in par, payrnea, for a new one. The u hole trouble, -a id Mr.

At more. tiro-.- throagli dct'ctii lu t: r'd'usui to foilin',- plaint ifi'b advice. Plaintiff always wi-h.-d to pirn Li'd'en i - ut. ! ■ l .; -i,; -! i-u y-1 (■ 1 was a \ ery bud advert i.-emcn | fui him Util-- till' fuel- were fully made linin',!]. Uefciidaii: tuoli-ldv ed contrary to Hallow V pre-,- direct mm- m -.d then sought *o blame Barlow lor •-■■-ult -, EvtUellCe vUs gtvet; he f(l:ii tl t ! ft' ('lt! I lie id"), (- i' tl,--. 11 •!];,! I whole transaction- hud Icea we.-’ tin Toying am! nasal i.-l'iiet oi v and wa- i- - r

tain i.v ii'-t a paying tran -m -h, n. Mr. Herd, on behalf ~| ‘h-fetoia tit. .subjected piaintiJV to : lengthy ero-s extiminat ion. ’l'owarii.- ;;m m.-i Mi. \ t more intci-po-ed. “Sir. a.v ftietnl i-.-,-'gained nothing by !, inili-;, crow. '■xamiuation. He a[ipa -••• 11-.- doe. ■ know anything about a car. i rert,i!:i I.v object to hi- insulting and disronr t'.'OUS remark.-. i won 1 i a-k tine mv client im shown the usual courtesy. ’' His W'orshiji: “V --. he certainly hit- got nothing in im crn'S-cxtuninn-fiori. 1 haven’t trout.led tain- a riy notes yet. ’ ’ After hearing forth* •• evidence of a technical nature by Air. Horn, an e • pert witness and defer iat.r, ■!:■. Magistrates found for the plaintiff and entered judgment for £J4 ‘1- fid. Court co-t- -- Ts and solicitor b-.- ti:: gs.