HAWERA.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 April 1922, Page 3

HAWERA.

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Special Reporter.) . April 4. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held here to-day, before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M. DANGEROUS DRIVING. A case which presented some peculiar features was heard. William Reid was charged with driving a motor-car along the road between Pihama and Otakeho in a manner dangerous to the public. Sergeant Henry said accused had passed at least five cars on the wrong side.

Constable Andrews said he was returning from the Opunake races on March 17, and defendant was driving on in. front in a very dangerous manner, passing cars on the wrong side of the road. Reid pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Henry said it was one of the worst cases of reckless driving he had seen. Mr. Spratt said that owing to temporary engine trouble accused was forced to take the course he did. He admitted passing four cars on the wrong side and omitting to blow the horn. If he had blown the horn it would have added to the danger, as the cars in front would have pulled off on to their correct side of the road, and Reid would have been close upon them and unable to cross to his correct side. For some unaccountable reason the car was accelerating, and when Reid took his foot off the accelerator the petrol was not shut off, and to some extent Reid lost his head. Reid was in a similar position to a man driving a bolting horse-

Reid gave evidence that he was driving an old model 14-h.p. F.N., and the car had given considerable trouble. He had had no drink that day, and he was not excited by the races. It did not occur to him to switch off the current and thus stop the car. Walter Smart, foreman of a motor workshop, gave evidence of similar experiences with accelerators, and said it was quite feasible that the trouble would right itself. His Worship said the question he had to decide was whether the defendant drove his car in a manner dangerous to the public considering the circumstances. If the man was driving a car dangerously, and had not the ability to adjust the trouble, he had yet to learn that this was a sufficient excuse for dangerous driving. If Reid was scared he had no right to drive on the road. Reid was fined £2, with costs 7sWILFUL DAMAGE. Arthur Henry Foy was charged with wilfully damaging a framed advertisement valued at Ils 6d. , Sergeant Henry said that a taxi car advertisement had been placed in the hall of Cook’s Hotel, and Foy had torn it down and destroyed it. Foy was fined £l, and ordered to make good the damage.

CIVIL CASES. The Hawera County Electric Company sued Messrs. D. J. Goodwin and L. H. Strawbridge for £32 13s lOd, being payment for material used and work done in rewiring the Dominion Hotel. Mr F. C. Spratt, for the plaintiff company, said that Goodwin was the present owner of the hotel, and Strawbridge a former licensee. Goodwin had paid for certain work done on the outside of the premises, but for payment for the inside work had referred the company to Strawbridge, who in turn had referred it back to Goodwin. Either Goodwin or Strawbridge, or both, were liable for payment. P. W. Lamb, secretary to the company, gave evidence of having communicated with Strawbridge, asking for payment, Strawbridge disclaiming liability and stating that he had had no work done while occupying the hotel. At Goodwin’s request, witness said, in answer to Mr. Beechey, who appeared for Goodwin, he had dissected the account, charging Goodwin for the outside work and Strawbridge for the inside work. The company’s engineer had told witness that Goodwin had ordered the work to be done. D. J- Goodwin, owner of the hotel, said Strawbridge was the lessee when, rewiring was ordered by the underwriters. Witness had 'interviewed the electric engineer and asked him what work' was necessary. The engineer had replied that not much was needed. Witness had then showed the engineer some work he wanted done in the yard, promising to pay for this. He considered the other portion of the account should be adjusted between Strawbridge and Capon. He did not employ the company to do any work other than that in the yard.

In answer to Mr. Bayley witness said he had suggested to the company that Strawhridge was liable. He did not know whether the work was actually started after Strawbridge had left the hotel. J. H- Strawbridge said he handed the license of the Dominion Hotel to Capon on January 1, 1921. He gave no instructions whatever to the company to do the wiring. At that time he had no idea the work was to be done. The material had arrived on the premises, but no work was done before he left the premises. Witness did not know that under his lease he was liable for repairs. Had he known he was liable he would have cancelled the order before leaving the hotel. In giving judgment, His Worship said the whole arrangement was most inexplicit,

but it seemed to him that defendant Goodwin did not put himself in the position of making it clear that he was not liable. It remained for one’s imagination to see how Goodwin held Strawbridge liable. It must not be forgotten that the benefit of the work would go to Goodwin, quite irrespective of the contracts between the parties.

Judgment was given against Goodwin for tire amount claimed. As for Strawbridge, His Worship said he could not find any evidence to prove that he undertook any responsibility or liability- Neither could he see anything to lead the plaintiff company to assume Strawbridge’s liability. The plaintiffs were allowed costs against Goodwin, and Strawbridge’s costs were ordered to be paid by the plaintiff company. Plaintiffs were non-suited in their case against Strawbridge. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following undefended cases: Tapp and Son v. Thomas Glenn, £5 (costs IBs); Stevenson, Blackstock and Co. v. W. Tumakuki, £ll5 12s Id (costs, £6 17s); C. E. Brooke v. Harry Hardaker, £ll 0s Id (costs £2 18s); Alex Thomas Main vThomas Glenn, £l4 2s (costs £3 2s) ; C. E. Brooke v. H- Lockley, £ll 14s (costs £2 19s); Thomas Gardiner v. B. Harrap, £lO 4s (costs, £3 4s); same v. J. O. Jones, £2 9s (costs, £1 13s 6d) ; same v. Rangi Taha, £5 (costs £1 18s 6d) ; Hawera Sash and Door Company, Ltd., v- F. T. Nicholson, £lO 9s 9d (costs £3 Is); Halliwell, Spratt and Thomson v. A. T. Peters, £lO 10s (costs £1 3s); G. R. Horsburgh v. T. G. Simpson, £8 14s 7d (costs £1 13s 6d) ; Bennett and Sutton v. T. P- Uniacke, £2 3s (costs 10s) ; W. F. Buist v. Isaac Noble, £4 (costs £1 8s 6d) ; Hawera Sash and Door Company, Ltd., v. J. Hoko-‘ poura, £3l 7s 8d (costs £4 10s 6d).

On a judgment summons, Joe Hokio was ordered to pay Goldstone and Patterson the sum of £3O 5s forthwith, in default 28 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended for one month after the service of the order.