MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 January 1920, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY'S SITTING. (Before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.). A sitting of the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court was held yesterday, before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., when the following business was transacted:— CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the undefended case of: —R. C. Hughes (Mr. F. E .Wilson) v. Tahi Tererewa, for £34 6s 6d (costs £3 3s)In the judgment summons case New Plymouth Borough Council (Mr. R. D. Quilliam) v. W. T. Duffin, an ordet for £8 10s <kl was made, in default nine days' imprisonment. LAND AGENTS' LICENSES. Licenses were granted to the following land agents: J. R. Hill, J. S S. Medley, Joseph Crockett, A- B. Gibson, S. Jackson, E. Humphries, F. W. Eberlet, J. R. Penn, A. L. Hunter, R. A. Large, R. F. Cornwall, L. A. Nolan, E- R. Gilmour and T. P. Hughson (Rahotu). COLLISION ON WAIWAKAIHO FLAT. Robert Whale, vulcaniser, New Plymouth, for whom Mr. C. H. Croker appeared, claimed £5 13s from Wm. H. Beadle, woodturner, New Plymouth (Mr. F. E. Wilson) for damage caused to a motor cycle which was in charge of plaintiff at the time. Mr. Croker said the occurrence took place on the Waitara-New Plymouth road, on June 22 last at about 5.30 p.m. Plaintiff was returning to New Plymouth on a motor cycle with Ins wife on the back of the machine. When near Smart road he had occasion to stop the bicycle, and did so, right on the extreme edge of the tarred portion of the roadway on his proper side. Just about the same time he saw defendant's car coming from Waitara, and it appeared that he had plenty of room to pass plaintiff's machine. When close to where plaintiff was standing, defendant swerved in towards him, and, being unable to shift the bike, he leaned it over towards himself to give all the loom possible, and to avoid his handle bars being struck. Notwithstanding this defendant's car went over the motor cycle and damaged it to the extent of £5 13s, which he had refused to pay. The explanation given by defendant was that he had seen another car approaching, but had not seen plaintiff and his cycle on account of the strong head lights on the approaching car. When he did see plaintiff it was too late to avoid him. It was either a case of running into the other car or the motor cycle and he chose the cycle. He had since refused to pav for the damage caused. In his evidence, plaintiff said the light of his cycle was burning and both the other cars lights, although it was no'; dark at the time. He had gone on to the soft part of the road because a car ran him pretty close, and, as he did not wish to chance skidding, he stopped the engine and his wife helped him to push the machine back on to the tar. In reply to Mr. Wilson, he denied that he had stopped the bicycle several times on the way in because it was running badly. Some conversation had taken place between him and defendant, both at the time of the accident and afterwards. Defendant had asked plaintiff to pay for a new tyre for him on account of the one "damaged in the collision. This he refused to pay for. Evidence was given by Arthur Brtowii, motor mechanic, as to the repairs necessary, and by Aligns C. Wright, vulcan- j iser, as to the condition of plaintiff's machine on the morning of the accident, | and as to the width of the tarred road at the locality of the accident. j Defendant said tlie date of the accident was June 8 and'not 22, as alleged. He saw nothing of the motor cycle on the side of the road as he came near to Smart roa,d, on account of the daz- j zling head lights-of'a car approaching from the Waiwakaiho bridge. When he did see the cycle it'was fully 3ft Oin from the edge of the asphalt towards the centre of the road- He was travelling at about ten miles an hour. He could not stop before he struck the cycle. He stopped as soon as he could, and be and Mrs. Beadle went back to plaintiff. He advised him to move his machine on to the side of the road or there would be another accident. The bicycle was moved to the road side. Plaintiff and witness met next day and he (witness) hoped to settle matters in connection with the accident, but plaintiff said he would make him pay for it. Corroborative evidence was given by defendant's wife, who was with him at time of the accident. After to what he termed the unfortunate aspect of the case, and also to the discrepancies between the evidence of the parties as to the exact position of the cycle at the time of the accident, his Worship gave judgment for defendant with costs.

RESERVED itroeMESPR His Worship gave a reserved dfecsfat' in the case of Arthur Ruff v. David Tekofsky, in which plaintiff claimed £2OO for alleged breach of agreement concerning a sale of land and an extension of the lease. The Magistrate reviewed the evidence, and gave his opinion that the alleged contract, which was a verbal one, should have been in writing, and bis judgment, therefore, went for defendant, with costs. Mr C. H. Croker represented plaintiff, and Mr F. E. Wilson appeared for defendant.