COURT NEWS

Shannon News, 21 October 1921, Page 3

COURT NEWS

VARIOUS SHANNON CASES. At last sitting oi the Palmerston Court, the following eases were heard: A DEAD DOG. B. Harnett (Mr H. R. Cooper) claimed from 1. Geihor (Mr J. Grant), the sum, of £2l, stated to be the value ol a dog owned by plaintiff which was run over and Killed by defendant's motor lorry on the Hmiatangi-Snan-non Road. Evidence was given ‘by plain tin that the dog had been run into by the lorry but had appeared to suffer no permanent injury. After the lorry had gone on, the dog lay down on the road and died. Plaintiff claimed that the accident had been due to the negligent driving of the defendant. «is Worship held that there was no evidence of negligent driving by defendant, and plaintiff was nonsuited. Costs amounting to £4 Is were allowed against plaintiff. Bn. is. At the Magistrate s Court, before Mr J. n. smut, &.M., Herbert Warner (Mr ongieyj, sued mwaru Nash (Mr Cooper) lor £6 10s, winch was alleged to have been borrowed by deienuant lrom plaintiff. > • Mr Ongley, outlining the case, said that eariy in June plaintiff had been in debt to defendant to the extent oi £8 10s. Towards the end of the month both men were paid, and plaintiff had gone to defendant’s tent and paid his debt, tendering him a £lO note. He had received hack 30s as change. In his pay envelope plaintiff had also another £lO note, which he took out when paying defendant. An argument had arisen as to whether the numbers of the two notes were consecutive, and defendant had offered to bet Walker “doubles or quits” that the numbers were consecutive. Plaintiff, however, had refused to make a bet, but had handed the remaining note over to defendant to satisfy the latter’s curiosity. Plaintiff had later agreed to lend defendant the second £lO note, but on demanding his nioney hack subsequent on defendant leaving Mangahao, where they both worked, defendant had denied having’ever received the £lO. , The defence was a complete denial of having received the note. Herbert Walker, in giving evidence, deposed,that he was a fellow employee of defendant’s at Mangahao. He had lebt the £lO to .defendant when asked , for it and in turn defendant had lent it to another employee named Ferguson,, who happened to be in the tent at the time the - first loan was transacted. Witness expected to he repaid by defendant next pay day, but as defendant left the works prior to this, witness had asked him. for his money, but defendant had denied that he had received it. Witness in the defendant’s debt to the extent of £3 2s, and offered to take in payment £6 18s. His Worship, in.giving judgment, said that the evidence pointed to , story being the correct one, and ordered defendant to pay the full amount claimed —£6 18s—with expenses amounting to £4 ss. IAXI-DmVEU EiNED. Gl'CiU'llle cmmil Wao OiiaXgeu Wau. dVi ting a »UUtUi-CtU' on a. uic iuunsecaun Ox iiuamiit! tarn Menu Su'ceis, rdiuicrsiun ixorai, at, a s#eeu greater man eignt nines per noui, anu aiso wiin uriving a car at me jnturaccuon ui a speed dangerous to me puniic. 1 lie Car was engageu in taking nieiimers ux the noruwnenua iouinan learn lu me Wairarapa. Miv Looper appeareu for defendant, and einereu a plea oi not guniy on ms behali. Semor-bergeaiu rraser conducieu the case on nehali oi me ponce. R. J. Cox,milk vendor, stated that at about 7.30 a.in. on August 27 he driving down Ruahine Street. When - he arrived at the comer of Mam street ' a iiiotor-cgr came along and ■ struck the horse’s head and the front of the shaft before he tfias able to puli up. Both shafts \ were broken oil close to the cart, and .horse knocked round by the d'orce of the collision. A high hedge prevented a clear view of either street, from the other. He would say the car was doing 30 miles mi hour. Both were on the ■ correct side of the road. car was lull, carrying seven passengers. The driver stated in the ’presence ot' Constable Madden that he.tyould have been able to pull up if his brakes *had been in good order.

/ Charles T. .Madden deposed that he 's.yas an eye-witness of the occui’rence. He ijotice{|i ! ia ; car approaching from the Square along Main Street at about 30 miles an hour. The speed of the milk cart would be about six miles an hour. The car, after the accident, pulled iip in about three lengths, v Constable Madden stated that when he arrived at the. scene of the accident, he asked the driver, at what speed he was travelling, and he replied 20 miles an hour, and if his brakes had been working well he •could have avoided llie cart. The car had pulled up at a distance of ,16 •paces from the point or contact. M? Cooper submitted that the infor-

mation must fail, as the evidence pointed to the fact that the collision had occurred -in Main Street and not on the intersection. His Worship ruled, however, that the case had been proved- and fined defendant £2 on the first charge, with 13s costs, and witnesses’s expenses amounting to £3 10s. The second charge was dismissed.