RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 2528, 13 July 1893, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Geraldine —Tuesday, July 11. [Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., and Messrs H. W. Moore and W. M. Moore, J. Ps.] CIVIL CASES. George Ward v. Charles Trengrove, asking for a warrant to re-enter into possession of a house rented from the plaintiff. Defendant denied having received any notice to leave, written or verbal. Plaintiff swore that a notice to leave had been served on defendant, but did not bring evidence to prove this. Under the circumstances the bench jould not make the order requested. Cornelius Leary v. Alexander W. Macdouald, claim £2 9a Gd, damage done to a buggy, by defendant's alleged negligence, in driving a trap into same. Mr Salmond appeared for plaintiff. Cornelius Leary, plaintiff; was not pre - sent at the accident, but stated that repairs to wheel cost £1 12s and to axle 17s 6d. The buggy was under repair and sould not be used for 5 weeks, for* which he also claimed compensation. He sent a Latter to defendant asking him to pay for damages or proceedings would be taken. Daniel Leary was driving home from church on April 9th. Was in the centre of the road, and defendant was driving about six yards behind him. Defendant having passed by a short distance the corner ho had to turn, wheeled round to go back, and in doing so caught the tail of plaintiff's buggy, and knocked the wheel off and did other damage. Defendant then pulled up and said he had no command of his horse, but would make the damage all right. Defendant did not call out to witness to get out of the way, and wituess was driving at a steady pace at the >ime of the accident. James Kearns was driving behind defendant's trap when the accident happened. Defendant was about three yards behind Leary's buggy when he turned, and in doing so caught the tire of a wheel, which broke very easily. There were a number of traps on the road, and both Leary and defendant were driving at a steady pace. As far as he could see, it was a pure accident, which might happen to anyone. Ann Leary, plaintiff's wife, corrobated the evidence of Dan Leary, and further stated that the buggy was nojj an QUe and that there waft plasty of room for defendant to pass without collision. Defendant's horse's head came into the back of her husband's trap, and if her children had been to mass| that Sunday they would probably have been killed. Mr Macdonald told her that he had no command over his horses, and that he was sorry for the accident. Alexander W. Maedonald deposed that the whole thing was a pure acoideut. He had a trap full of childrem himself, and ha had no wish to injure anyone. Had the Leary's kept straight as they were going the accident would not have happened. But as witness turned the cross-road Learys buggy moved towards the centre of the road, and the hind wheel of witness's trap struck it. The bench considered it waa an accident, and that plaintiff waa as much to blame as defendant, Judgement was therefore giyw for defendant. Th.Q Court then rose.