DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8448, 24 May 1907, Page 5

DISTRICT COURT.

MASTERTON—THURSDAY.

(Before His Honor Judge Haselden)

I CHARGE OF THEFT. Ernest Sinclair . was charged with stealing various articles of clothing, etc., from William Riddle, storekeeper, at Taueru, between March 15th and April 24th. The following jury were empanelled j —Messrs L. Donald (foreman), J. W. Peters, J. B. Smith, P. A. Cole, Thos. Fawcett, J. Wellington, A. C. Pragnell, S. Smallwood, W. J. Fly, J. Bradbury, R. S. Willoughby and J. Welch. Mr B. J. Dolan appeared for the Crown, and Mr C. A. Pownall for the accused. Elizabeth Riddle, wife of William Riddle, was the first witness called for the prosecution., She stated that about March 14th, she went for la holiday to Christchurch, and returned on March 28th. She missed certain articles from the store andi house on her return from church, and identified the articles found in the accused's possession as those missing. When she went on her holiday to Christchurch the boarding-house and shop were left in charge of Mr Riddle. Cross-examined by Mr Pownall, witness stated that there was no record kept of cash sales in the shop. There were o'her articles missing besides those found in the possession of accused. Wi'diam Riddle, storekeeper, and boardinghouse-keeper at Taueru, stated that none of the articles alleged to have been stolen were sold by him to accused during Mrs Riddle's absence. To Mr Pownall: He could not recollect any of the articles he had sold and to whom he had sold them during Mrs Riddle's absence. Mrs Taplin said accused had brought several shirts, etc., to her in a portmanteau to have them washed. He left the portmanteau open, and did not conceal the contents in any way.

Constable Gregor deposed to arresting accused. When the charge, was read to acmsed, the latter made "a statement to witness as to where he had purchased the various articles found in his possession. ,

H. J. Isitt, clerk and storekeeper at Te Parae Station, said accused had, been working at the station for some time. He had purchased a pair of dungaree trousers at the station store,- but they were not those found on accused, and produced in Court. This concluded the case for»the Crown. For the defence, Thos W. Pinhey, station hand at Te Parae, testified to the accused purchasing certain articles at the store at Te Parae. He thought the trousers produced i» Court were those purchased by accused. The accused, Ernest Sinclair, stated that he had purchased most of the articles found in his possession from Riddle and some of them at other places. Robert McFarlane, tobacconist, Masterton, stated that accused bought a lsrge number of packets of cigarettes from him on several occasions. 'J his concluded the evidence. After counsel had addressed the jury, and his Honor had summed up the case, the jury retired. They returned in about half an hour with a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner was accordingly discharged. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. T. Dwyer and Co. claimed from Ah Kin the sum of £167 19s 3d, damages caused to plaintiff's motor car by a collision with defendant's cart, in High Street, on April sth. The claim was for £67 19s 3d cost of repairs and £IOO special damages. Ah Kin lodged a counter claim for £ls for damage done to his cart by the same collision. t The two claims were taken together. The following were the jury empanelled: —Messrs Alexander Wylie (foreman), J. A. Wakelin, F. Wellington, and A. P. Daysh. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr P. L. Hollings for defendant. Thos. J. Dwyer, plaintiff, said he was in Christchurch when the accident took place. He returned to Masrerton two days after the collfsion. He saw the car, which was considerably bent and damaged. He had to send it to Wellington to be repaired, the cost being £67 19s 3d. The driver of' the car (Cross) was a certificated driver. Witness had been in the car when Cross wag driving, and found him a safe and careful driver.

Cross-examined, witness denied that he had stated to Inglis Bros, (the firm who were doing the work of repairing the car) that the Chinaman would have to pay the damage, and also that he was getting commission out of the repair work. Sydney Cross, driver of the car, stated that he was a certificated driver. He had obtained his certificate from the London County Coun T cil, and had had six years' expert ence of driving motor cars in London. On the night in question, the car was being used by Mr Frank O'Connell (Mr Dwyer's brother-in-law) and two lady friends. The car had lights on both sides, and was travelling at a speed of from eight to nine miles an hour when the collision occurred. The night was very dark, and he was keeping a careful look-out. He considered twelve miles an hour a moderate speed on a dark night. He did not catch a glimpse of the Chinese cart till the car struck it. There were no lights visible on the cart. The fact that he was approaching a street lamp and that the cart was between the lamp and the car lights made it more difficult to notice the cart. The car struck a corner of the cart. There was a lamp on the cart on the right-hand side, but it was not alight. He felt the lamp, and it was quite cold. To Mr Hollings: He considered that if he struck the cart when travelling at the rate of eight miles an hour the damage stated would have been"caused. He did not shut off the engine as soon as the car struck the cart. He immediately put on the brake when the collision occurred, and got out and shut off the engine. He admitted .being fined once for furious driving in the town in daylight. It seemed reasonable to conclude that the collision between the car and the cart would extinguish a 1 candle lamp. If he had seen the cart

twenty feet ahead he could have stopped the car. It did not occur to him that he should slow down when he could not see twenty feet ahead. To Mr Pownall: He could easily pull up the car in fifteen feet. He could have seen a light at least twenty yards away. Miss Morris stated that she was eye) ing to Carterton on the night in question. She was about a chain away when the collision occurred. She would certainly say that there were no lights on the Chinamen's cart. John Harman said he # was also cycling in the vicinity of the place where the collision occurred on the night in question. When he passed the Chinamen's cart one of the occupants was holding a lamp between his knees. The light would notj be visible from behind the cart. In his opinion the motor car was not travelling at an excessive speed. Gifford Nicholls, motor expert, of Wellington, stated that it was under his direction that plaintiff's car was being repaired. He had had fourteen years' experience with motor cars. If a car that was going at the rate of ten miles an hour ran into a cart going in the same direction at about six miles an hour, the impact would be quite sufficient to cause the damage stated. He could pull up the car in two or three yards if it was travelling at about ten miles an hour. To Mr Hollings: If he were driving a car and had two lamps like those'on plaintiff's car he could see about fifteen yards in front of him. Frank O'Connell -corroborated the evidence of the witness Cross. Joseph Hickson and Constable Egan also gave evidence for the plaintiff. Mr Hollings stated that he considered there was no case for the jury, and applied for a non-suit. His Honor said that, on the evidence, he was not prepared to grant the application. Chung Kim was the first witness for tire defence. He stated that on the evening in" question he was driving a vegetable cart from Carterton to Masterton. He lighted his lamp about a mile before reaching the Waingawa bridge/ The light was on £he off-side. The horse in the cart was trotting along the road when, without warning, the motor car struck the vehicle. The impact extinguished the light on the cart. The horse was badly wounded on the leg and on the hindquarters and the harness was broken. The front part of the cart was broken by the kicking of the horse and the tailboard was also broken. He was fifteen or sixteen days without the use of the horse in consequence of the accident. He had been travelling on the Carterton road two or three times a week for about nine years, and had never met with an accident before. To Mr PownalJ: He left Carterton Post Office at about 6 o'clock. He had travelled over five miles without a light. He always used a light coming along that road. The light on the cart could be seen more than a chain away. He did not hear the car coming. He thought anyone ought to be able to see the light on the cart from behind.

Ah Hai, the other occupant of the cart, gave corroborative evidence.

E. J. Matthews and P. Reardon gave expert evidence. Both witnesses considered that a careful motor car driver could have avoided the collision.

The case was then adjourned till this morning at 10 o'clock.