THREATENING LANGUAGE ALLEGED

Shannon News, 26 January 1926, Page 3

THREATENING LANGUAGE ALLEGED

1 CASE ADJOURNED ON LAW’ POINT. i A case of interest to. Shannon and ■ Mangahao was commenced beffore Mr ■ J. L. Stout, S.M., at the Magistrate's ' Court yesterday, when W. R. Jay, of I Mangaore, proceeded against William Cochrane, of Shannon, the complaint being that on January 11, defendant used threatening words as follows: — “I’ll finish you off some time, by crushing you over the bank.’’ Mr Oram explained that the informant was employed at Mangahao by the Public Works until he was severely injured. Then he ran, the cook house at Mangaore until he accumulated a little money and conceived the idea of running, an early morning service to Mangatao. Defendant likewise started a service and his right to do so was recognised. The road to Mangahao was not dangerous, but very narrow and‘ it therefore entailed cautious driving. On at least two occasions defendant had had words with complainant and had definitely stated that he would push him off the road. Cochrane on the day under review was driving a heavy motor ahead of Jay. Complainant’s car was a lighter one and on catching up to defendant he Mew his horn. Cfochfane looked behind and saw Jay following. There were at least two places where he could have let his competitor pass, but he did not do so. Eventually, Jay did get .past, but no soon had he done so £hun defendant jammed on his accelerator and again forced himself ahead of Jay. Later, he effectually blocked a passageway and made use of the words complained of.

Complainant, in evidence, stated that he left Mangaore each morning at 6 o’clock, he having various contracts. Cochrane later instituted a competitive service. Prior to January 11 defendant had used threatening language towards witness. At this stage His Worship pointed out that the information did not disclose an offence in a public place. He was inclined to believe that the omission was fatal td the complainant’s case and agreed to adjourn the hearing for a fortnight, in order that counsel might refer to authorities. Mr Oram, for complainant, stated that if he found the information was not complete, he would.issue another information and ask leave to withdraw the present one.

LEVIN MAGISTRATE’S COURT. JANUARY SITTING. The January sitting of the Levin Magistrate’s Court was held in Levin on Thursday. Mi’ J. L, Stout was on the Bench. TRAFFIC REGULATIONS. The first case arising out of the erection of the new silent policeman at the intersection of Queen and Oxford Streets, came before the Court, when .Anne Rachel Newman was charged with having driven her car contrary to the traffic regulations of the borough. Constable Greggan stated that on the 14th of January defendant had, in failing to observe the keep-to-the left by-law, nearly collided with another car coming in the opposite direction. ' '' Constable Bagrie said that a ntunber of complaints had (been receivedin regard to breaches of this' particular traffic regulation, and it was the intention of the Borough Council to enforce the rules of the road, -so as to prevent accidents happening. Defendant was fined £1 and costs 13s. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. Owting [to the non-appearance of defendant judgment by default was given in the following cases:— S. Frechtling v. G. C. McDonald, claim £lO 9s, costs £2 14s. Howard Harvey and Sons v. R. H. Pratt, claim £2 15s, costs £1 3s’ 6d. W. G. Quarrie v. R. Ramsay, claim £1 19s 2d, costs Bs. Blertha Ransftelid v. L l . Simpsdn, claim £3, costs £1 3s 6d. Olive Gertrude Linklater v. Got>lieb Gnumwald, claim £7 10s, costs £1 10s 6d, P. 0. von Hartitzsch v. E, Rough, claim £l2 2s 9d, costs £2 15s. D. Malcolm v. E. MjcGill, claim £l4 4s, costs £3. Ivor Matthews v. E. Bevan, claim £2, costs £1 3s 6d. E. Allmand v. E. Webber, claim £2 19s 6d, costs £1 3s 6d. E. Allmand v. L. G. Simpson, claim £4 16s, costs £1 11s 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Judgment for plaintiff was entered in the following cases:— M. Langley Shaw v. Dick Patuaka, £3 6s, to be paid forthwith, in default seven days. Harold Hook v. A. W. Robinson, £2 9s, to be paid forthwith, in default seven days. Harold Hook v. S. Robinson, £1 13s 9d, to he paid forthwith, in default seven days.,