MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 January 1922, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH CASES. MOTORISTS FINED. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court, New Plymouth, was held yesterday, when Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., dealt with a number of police, civil, and bylaw cases. Donald Cameron was charged with driving a motor car along Devon Street on November 19 at a greater speed than 20 . miles an hour. Defendant wrote stating he would be unable to attend court, and admitting the offence. Constable Parkinson in giving evidence for the prosecution estimated that Cameron was driving at about 40 miles an hour. The locality in which he was detected was near Strandon. Defendant when seen at a later date admitted driving at over 20 miles an hour, but said that as the road was clear he thought there was no danger. His Worship imposed a fine of £2 and Costs. Chas. Swanson, who was convicted on a charge of riding a motor cycle along Devon Street (between Liardet and Queen Streets) at a greater speed than 12 miles an hour, was fined £2, and ordered to pay costs 15s.

On the information of Constable Small Norman McLeod was charged with driving a motor car from Devon Street into Brougham Street at a greater speed than six miles an hour and also with failing to keep as near to the left side as possible in turning the corner. The alleged offence occurred on December 20. After hearing the evidence the Bench imposed a fine of £2, with costs 7s, on the charge of exceeding the speed limit round the corner. A conviction and fine of 10s was entered on the second information. EXPRESS LEFT UNATTENDED. Informations brought by the police against Pa C. Hoskin alleged that defendant left an express unattended in Fulford Street for a longer period than five minutes, and that lie removed the blinkers off two horses. Mr. Bennett, who appeared for defendant, said that the offence occurred outside Hoskin’s residence at geven o’clock in the morning. It was the custom of defendant to leave his express outside and to feed the horses from nosebags while he went and had breakfast. Hoskin did not know he was infringing the by-laws. On the first information defendant was convicted and discharged and on the charge of removing the blinkers off the horses (which His Worship regarded as the more serious) a fine of 10s was inflicted. CONVICTED OF ASSAULT. An incident which occurred on New Year’s hie resulted in Norman Plumber being charged with assaulting John Daisley. It was stated that though there was an old grievance between the parties there was no justification on this occasion for Plumber’s act in walking up vO Daisley in Devon Street and striking him. On Daisley attempting to keep out of Plumber’s way by stejXing into a shop accused followed him int Mr. R. H. Quilliam, who appeared for defendant, pleaded guilty. He explained that Daifcley had some time previously assaulted Plumber and had £one about boasting of the fact. It was therefore natural, though not excusable, that Plumber should have attempted to even up matters on the first opportunity. Defendant was fined £3. CHARGE OF “SPEEDING.” The county inspector (Mr. B. Tippins) brought an information against John Hislop, director and salesman of the Tourist Motor Company, Hastings, alleging that he drove n car in a manner dangerous to the public on the New Plymouth-Waitara Road (near Smart Road) on July 12. Air. H. R. Billing appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty. For informant Mr. R. H. Quilliam said, that in July of last year the inspector was walking along the asphalt road just beyond the Waiwakaiho bridge when a car went by at a rate which, it was estimated, was about 50 miles an hour. The inspector was able to take the registration number, but of course, did not recognise the occupants of the car (two men). Evidence was given by the informant and a boy named J. M. Warnock. The latter estimateci the speed of the ear at between 40 and 50 miles an hour. There were a number of children on the road at the time.

Gordon Saunders, motor salesman in the employ of the Hastings company, who was called by the prosecution, admitted that it was about the time <ff the charge that Hislop made a trip to New Plymouth in a Minerva car, witness accompanying him. They had been out at the Hawera show exhibiting the ear. The date mentioned in the charge must have been the occasion on which Hislop and he were returning from Waitara. He did not think, however, that their speed was anywhere in the vicinity of 40 miles an hour; it would be more like half that, as it was their rule never to drive a new car over 20 miles an hour. . For the defence Mr. Billing pointed out that it had not been proved that it was the defendant’s car which was noticed by the inspector, but he relied mainly on the fact that the evidence was confined to the speed and not to the manner in which the car was driven. Defendant,. John Hislop, in. the course of his evidence, denied that he drove at the speed mentioned, and relied on the fact that it was always a rule not to drive a new car over 20 miles In reviewing the case His Worship said it seemed clear that a must be entered, though he did not think it was a case for an exemplar} fine. Defendant would be convicted and ordered to pay costs £2 2s. «A FILTHY JOKE.”

A middle aged woman, Catherine Gilbanks was charged with packet containing an indecent <-O“muniLtion through the post on January 16, 1922. and a young woman, Ellen w Curd-'- was charged with aiding Xtiig tw offence. Detect ive-Sergeant .he afternoon defendants appeared and pleaded guilty to the charges.

Detective-Sergeant Cooney said that the girl to whom the communication was sent was barely 16 years of age. When enquiries were made as the result of a complaint lodged by the girl’s father accused admitted the offence. Mrs. Gilbanks should have known the seriousness of the offence. The girl McCurdy was about 17.

Asked what she had to say Mrs. Gilbanks said she had done it for a joke. “A pretty filthy one wasn’t it?” enquired His Worship. “I suppose it was wnen you come to look at it,” was the reply. “There’s no supposition about it,” said His Worship.

The defendant McCurdy also admitted that the joke was a filttiy one. “Didn’t you realise the seriousness of the act?” asked His Worship. “I didn’t then, but I do now,” she replied. ‘T am going to call for a probation officer’s report on these defendants,” said His Worship in adjourning the case for a week. “It is far too serious a ease to pass over.”

JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT. In the following cases judgment for plaintiff by default was entered: —The Red Post Co., Ltd. v. Leo Sim £26 15s fid, costs £3 Is; P. B. Fitzherbert v. Te Inganga £l3 6s 6d, costs £3 4s; M. O. jiutcher v. 11. H. Wood £l2 2s, costs £3 4s; Burgess, Fraser and Co., Ltd. v. E. C. Beswick £B6 3s Id, costs £3 ss; Henry Brown and Co., Ltd. v. Stanley Stevens £2 5s lOd, costs £1 4s fid; Henry Brown and Cd., Ltd. v. John Mitchell £l4 10s sd, costs £2 12s; Taranaki Farmers’ Tannery Co., Ltd. v. BertBurgess (costs on claim) £1 10s; E. Gluckman, trading as the Taranaki Picture Framing Company v. William Hart £-2 10s, costs £1 3s 6d; same v. K. Trevis £l, costs Bs. On a judgment summons issued by J. B Mac Ewen and Co., Ltd., Don Sellars was ordered to pay the sum of £8 8s forthwith, in default 10 days imprisonment, warrant to be suspended until 14 days after the service of the order. Wiremu Paraone was ordered, to pay R. C. Hughes £l2 18s 4d forthwith, in default 14 days’ imprisonment, the order to be suspended for a month. Rahui Murray was ordered to pay the same creditor £27 16s Bd, in default 27 days, the warrant to be suspended if the amount is paid at the rate of £1 per month. Judgment by default was given in the case of C. A. P. Wood v. P. A. Badland., claim for £44 12s 6d, costs £6 Ils. MISCELLANEOUS. The case in whidi William Brown claimed possession of premises from H. J. Jones and Thuza Jones, adjourned from December, was again called on. An order for possession was made by consent, the premises to be vacated by February 2. Sadie A. Crombie, who previously secured a maintenance order against A. B. Giombie, was granted a separation, with custody of the child. The payment of rent amounting to £l7 19s, and an order for possession of premises was sought by O. E. Flyger from W. P. Simpson. The defence raised was that Simpson, whb had three children, was unable to get a house. In reply to cross-examination he denied that this resulted from the fact that he never paid any rent. His Worship pointed out that the fact of Simpson not having paid up the rent in this case prevented him from taking into consideration facts which otherwise might have been noted. An order was made for the payment of rent £l7 19s and costs 15s, the question of possession to stand over for a fortnight.