MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 September 1919, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

J grFSTERDAVS SITTDf* (Before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) In the Magistrate's Court yesterday ■udgment was given for plaintiff by de:ault in the following undefended cases: Senry Brown & Co. (Mr. F. E. Wilson) v. Wnt. Hardwick, £BO 10a 8d; E. Vincent (Mr. C. H. Croker) v. Iho Tamati, £26 3s fid. • DAMAGE TO A TBAMCAB. The New Plymouth Borough Council (Mr. Ronald H. Quilliam) claimed from B. F. fioebuck (Mr. C.-H. Croker) the sum of £lO for damage caused to one of the corporation tramway cars by 8 collision between the car and a motor lorry belonging to defendant. Mr. Quilliam said the collision took (lace, in Egmont Street on June 24. A tramcar was travelling along the street jtowarda the railway station at a alow Meed. A motor lorry was standing out:«ias the stables on the left hand side ofnhe road, between the tram rails and ■the kerbing. The tramway motorman .Mnnded his gong all along the street because of the lorry standing on the roadside. Just as the car came up to the Jorry. it started to move forward in itte same direction as the tram was going. ' It pulled in towards the car and "scraped along the side of the car, and it for the damage done that the claim -swaa made. The driver of the lorry had admitted his liability, tot defendant had Wot paid the amount of the damage. : Evidence on tbe lines set out by countfcel was'given by Frederick B. Tozer, 'driver of the tram, who said that 4t tbe lorry-driver had been looking in <Vh6 proper direction the accident could *«ot have happened. He Bounded his jgoqg, and until the motor lorry began TO. move it wag about 4ft. off the tram '•flWk. S; In reply to Mr. Croker he said the yueident could not have happened if he had stopped when he came up tlto'the lorry; but he did not see why he should pull up. He told the driver of the lorry when the collision took place that it was his fault, and, he said he sup- , fused- he would have'to pay for it to \mtn further trouble. The motor lorry -fenade an extraordinary amount of noise. . jßnssell >H. Bartley, manager of the ' tramways, ga;ve evidence as to the dam- . "age done ami the cost of repairing the disfigured panel of the car, which he esti- - butted at £AO. In cross-ejbcamination hy Mr. Croker, ; Witness saiH he did not consider the, panel could be satisfactorily filled. It . ;Wss cracked right through for a dis--1 tance of about 2ft. The only satisfac- .' torv repair wonjd bo to replace the halfl panel in which -the damage was done. *• Evidence wns, given bv Max 0. Butcher Snd C. X. Johnson. <ihe former estimating ib* damage would cost £lO 3s to repair • and the latter fixed the cost at £l2 10s. i. Both agreed that tbe paliel needed re- ;- neving. Evidence was also given by Thomas . Brett, the conductor of the tramcar. who 'said the ■warning- gong was sounded all the way along Egmont Street. * Tlffe dfcfenco was that there was no i oar to be seen in Egmont Street when t- the lorry driver started his motor, and ;'<•. that when he got up to his seat he did jj. nqt set> anv car coming. The motor made i a t good deal' of noise and the driver t heard no warning gong. The first thin? \ IttfTcneW was when he saw the car come & np 'alongside of his lorry, and he then '-. pulled off and the back of his lorry struck the tram car. The lorry driver ' was going oat on to the centre of the ' toad to give himself room to get round the comer of the road by the railway. i The accident occurred through the negligence of the tram driver in not pull- " » fag up the car when he found the motor Jorrv coming across his track.The driver of the lorry (F. W. Uoe- < buck) gave evidence in accord with the '' statement of counsel. Be offered to pav ** for the damage because he thought it * Would cost only a few shillings, and would be cheaper than paying a lawyer to defend the case. i • Judgment was given' for plaintiff for lbs sum of £9, with costs. "' ' SCHCITOBS'COSTS. Messrs Fitzherbert and Fitzherbert, \ solicitors, New Plymouth (Mr. F. E. * "Wilson), claimed against. Heni Waitenc f '(Mr. C. B. Stead, Waitara) for the sum " of £39 9s 6d for services rendered and moneys paid. . The sum of £ll 15s 8d had been paid Into court. Mr. Wilson, said tbat some part of the account was admitted by defendant, and i , lie thought he was entitled to know t which were the items in dispute. . Counsel then conferred and detailed ' 'the various items of the account which were admitted and which were in dis- * Evidence was then given bv Patrick \ 18. Fitzherbert, of the plaintiff firm, as ',, to the work done and account of charges ' tendered. The defence was that there had been too instructions to raise a loan from the ' 'Public Trustee unless and until arrangements were made for tbe release of a mortgage already held over defendant's property bv Mr. O. V. Tate. Fvidence was given by Mr. Joe Taylor and Mr. 0 V. Tate, after hearing which 'the magistrate gave judgment for plaintiffs for the sum of £39.