SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 February 1918, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Edwards) The sittings of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth were continued yesterday before his Honor, Mr. Justice Edwards, when the following business was transacted: — RESERVED JUDGMENT. ■His Honor gave judgment in the appeal of Ctiarles Bowden (Mr. R. 11. Billing) against the decision of Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., at New Plymouth, in dismissing the charges against Jack Sanger and Robert Ciemow (Mr A. H. Johnstone) under the sale of Food and Drugs Act, for selling milk containing added water and with 'selling milk deficient in solids. Ciemow who carted his own milk and Sanger's to Butler's dairy, sold the samples to the inspector on demand. His own milk had proved satisfactory, but that of Sanger's was found to have been adulterated. The question to be decided was whether Ciemow in selling milk to the inspector became Sanger's agent, or whether the case be referred back to the magistrate for the purpose of charging Sanger with selling adulterated milk to Butler. After reviewing the facts submitted and the arguments advanced his Honor dismissed the appeal, holding that Ciemow was not the selling agent of Sanger at the time of the offence. The judge said he could not, as suggested by counsel, refer the ease back to the magistrate for the information to be amended to a charge against Sanger of selling to Butler, as tne time within which an amended information could be laid had elapsed. On the application of Mr. Johnstone costs £7 7s were allowed respondents on the first charge. J

STONEX v TARANAKI AMUSEMENTS. Mr. Quilliam, on behalf of the plaintiffs in the action of Stonex and Stonex v. the Taranaki Amusements Co., Ltd. (Mr Bennett), and C'happell and Woolley, contractors, applied to have the hearing of their claim adjourned until the next sitting of the court. He said he had been advised that the non-ap-pearance of plaintiffs wben'the case was called on Tuesday had been due to a misunderstanding. They had under-, stood that all the facts were admitted by the defendants. He now believed that. Mr- Bennett contested some points in connection with the claim. Mr- Bennett opposed the. application. He said plaintiffs had consented to the order for consolidating the cases, and as they were aware of the date of the Court's sitting, judgment should be given for defendants bv default. His Honor said he did not consider, i f plaintiffs failed to come into court when

the rase was called, they couhl be entitled to hold up the decision of the court in the other en res mid thereby deprive the plaintiffs in the other actions of receiving moneys to which they might be entitled, and which might be urgently needed by them. The application for adjournment was refused and the action dismissed in favor of defendants. The matter of costs in the whole of the cases was mentioned by Mr. Quit liam. It had been stated at the hearing that there was no scale iixed to nif-et the cases and Mr. Quilliam intimated that all the parties concerned desired the court to fix the costs. MOTOR -COLLISION. | Legal argument was heard in the appeal of Sidney Georg: 1 (Mr. H. R. Billing) against the decision of Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., at Inglewood, in the mat- ' ter of a motor collision in which appellant was held to have been guilty of | contributory negligence. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for the respondent, Frank Mills.

Mr. Billing said the appeal was on points of law; It was contended that i there was no evidence of contributory Inegligence on the part of appellant; and I tint the facts as found by, the Magisdid not, amount to contributory j negligence. That being so it was held that the Magistrate had misdirected himself on a point of law. He had found that respondent bad been at fault in going to his wrong side of the road without leaving room for appellant to pass with safety, but it had been further "found that appellant bad been guilty of contributory negligenceIt was pointed out that the collision was at the top of a hill on the Junction road between Inglewood and Tarata. Appellant was riding a motor cycle and respondent was driving a motor car in the opposite direction to that in which appellant was travelling. When* they first saw each other they %'ere eight or nine vards smart. The width of the road at that point was 18ft, 1being metalled. There was also a sharp bend in the road of less than a right angle. The car was travelling 15 miles an hour and the cycle at five miles per hour. When tli<v cyclist first saw the ! car it was on its wrong side. The ' Magistrate had held that in order to j avoid a collision appellant should have i gone on to bis wrong 'side. Mr. Billing I contended that calculating the speeds of the two vehicles when the drivers first saw each other they must have met in the space of one second, and that in that time it would have been impossible for respondent to have swerved sufficiently to avoid a collision. The onus of proving contributory negligence was on the respondent. He cited judgments in ; support of his contention that respond- , ent was within his rights in keeping J to his position on the left side of the roadMr. Johnstone submitted that there

was lit. Irfist sonip of oonfrihn- j tory Appellant apparently. claimed the light to a clear track, 2ft from the centre of the road. The accdent happened it I, a dangerous corner, the danger being well known to appellant- He knew lie was liable to meet almost anything ut the corner, and lie must have knosvn tlmt a car coming round t'ho cprner could not help hut fro well out 011 to the road, He should have been ready, at such a spot, for any emergency. Instead of making wli for the other vehicle ho had kept on in what was practically the centre of the road. He had said in evidence that he saw it was impossible to pass on his proper side, and yet he had made no move to avoid a collision. In the circumstances Mr. Johnstone said he thought his contention that there was evidence at least of contributory negligence, was a sound one, and he cited judgments in support. His Honor reserved his decisionCLAIM FOR PROHIBITING PARTITION OF LAND. The case of liura Ivitoro v. Xgatata and others, a claim for writ prohibiting the partition of lands was mentioned and on the application of plaintiff wai adjourned to the Wanganui sessions, which open next week, in order to allow parties in the ease there who were through indisposition, unable to come to New Plymouth to appear in court where it was said judgment would ba consented to. The Court then rose. J