MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 May 1922, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING, BREACHES OF BY-LAWS, ( J A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held at New Plymouth yesterday, Mr. A. W. Mowlem, S.M., being on the bench. On the information of the Taranaki County Council, Samuel Flay, for allowing two horses to be at large on the Upper Mangorei Road, was fined 10s (costs 7s). I rank Bremuhl, for leaving a motorlorry unattended in Currie Street for longer than five minutes, was, on the infomation of the borough inspector (Mr. R. Day), convicted and fined £1 (costs 14s). The lorry was left at the taxistand. For driving a motor-car in Devon Street recklessly and in a manner dangerous to the public, W. G. Holder was convicted and fined £1 (costs 14s). Norman Clarke (a tram motorman) said that the application of the emergency brakes saved a collision. For cycling at night on unlighted bicycles, Edward J. Rooke, Charles Bint, and Herbert Herdman were convicted and fined 10s (costs 7s). Frank Farrell, for leaving an unlighted vehicle standing at night in Sackville Street, was fined £1 (costs 7s). CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following cases: A. S. Hasell v. A. S. Hill, £6(costs £2 8s 6d); C. A. Panckhurst v. A. 8. Hill, £4 (costs £2 6s 6d); C. N. Hay v. R. Edwards, £35 2s (costs £2 13s). J. H. Robson, at the suit of Fairbrother and Pickering, was ordered to pay £8 10s 6d on or before May 18, in default eight days’ imprisonment in the New Plymouth Gaol. MAINTENANCE CASES. In the case of Annie Simons v. Samuel L. Simons, failure to pay £l2 6s due under maintenance order,, arrears were admitted. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment in Auckland, the warrant to be suspended -so long as defendant pays current maintenance of Is 6d per week, and in addition pays 2s 6d per week off the arrears. An application for variation of the maintenance order in the same case was dismissed, whilst defendant’s application to have the arrears remitted was also dismissed. In the case Annie Simons V. Sidney Herbert Simons, in which defendant admitted being in arrears or. money due under a maintenance order, to the extend of £3 6s, defendant was convicted and sentenced to li4 days’ imprisonment at New Plymouth, the warrant to be suspended if defendant pays 10s per week, being 5s for current maintenance and 8s off arrears. An application for an order for secur--ity to be given for the performance of the terms of the order wqs dismissed. NEARLY AN ACCIDENT. John P. Henderson was charged on the information of the Taranaki County inspector (Mr. McGahey) with driving a motor-lorry on the Mangorei Road in a manner dangerous to the public. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. R. H. Quiliiam, for the inspector, said defendant was travelling at not less than 20 miles an hour down the hill near the bridge at the Meeting of the Waters, striking the County Council’s sweeper, which was on the concrete bridge, and the horse, whilst the man in charge “had to jump for his life.” Mr. Quiliiam submitted that the defendant’s brakes were not in proper order, though it -was admitted he had the vehicle under control just as it struck the sweeper. John H. Gower, who was in charge of |he sweeper at the time, gave evidence on these lines. He stated that when the lorry was within a few chains of the bridge the car started to zigzag, and when it approached nearer the driver shouted to witness to go back off the bridge. The lorry Seemed to slow down a chain from the bridge. Witness jumped oft' his seat and went back off the bridge, as he though the lorry was coming over on top of the horse, sweeper and all. The lorry slewed the sweeper and hit the bridge. Mr. A. A. Bennett, for defendant, submited that there was no case to answer. When rounding the bend approaching the bridge, defendant shut off the benzine and applied his brakes, believing that the lorry would stop before an impact took place with the sweeper, which he thought was stationary on the bridge. He had done everything he possibly could do to avert an accident. There was no evidence as to an impact taking place. He thought the inforamtion was ( trivial and should be dismissed. !

The defendant gave evidence. He found the brakes were not gripping on file way down the hill towards the bridge, so he swerved from side to side to assist in bringing the lorry to a standstill. The lorry just touched the bridge, but there was no bump. On examining the brakes afterwards, he found there were indications of grease from the hub, which caused the brakes to fail to grip. The magistrate said it seemed to him that the evidence against the defendant was weak. At the same time he would not be warranted in dismissing the case, as there was evidence of neglect on the defendant’s own admission in the box: he had not done everything he should have done. The fact that the brakes did not hold the vehicle, so that it travelled faster than expected, touching the sweeper and the side of the bridge, despite tnc fact, that defendant saw the sweeper G’/j chains away from the bend, showed this. Therefore it seemed that Henderson did drive in a dangerous manner, as he knew the brakes were not as good as they should lie. Notwithstanding, he came down the hill which, on his own evidence, was the steepest part between New Plymouth and Inglewood, and just avoided an untoward occurrence. Drivers should see that their gear was in proper order. Defendant would be convicted and fined £-2 (costs £3 2s).