(Before Mr V. G. Day, S.M.)
By-Law Cases. Andrew Christie (Traffic Inspector) charged E. Mills with travelling on a motor cycle over the Ashburton Traffic Bridge at toij^great a'-speed, oh Jan. 4 Defendant pleaded not guilty,.— Mr Kavanagh asked to-be allowed to act for defendant, but his Worship said that under the Statute he had no power to allow Mr 'Kavanagh to act. Defendant should" have obtained ■&' solicitor. Mr Kavanagh could watch -the case if he wished .—Andrew:.. Christie gave evidence as to the offence, and stated that .tlie number of the, machine was 330.—At Mr Kavanagh's'suggestion, defendant asked the Inspector several questions. The" Inspector answered that he had been in the centre of the bridge when the cycle crossed : and the "machine had been, travelling 16 miles an hour. He had. no interest in- the,fine whatever, and would not take it if fie had. —Joseph Dalley gave corroborative evidence. — Defendant remarked that he wished his bicycle cduld go as fast as alleged. Hehad ridden 30,000 .miles oh the bicycle in question through, a. great part of both, islands, and had never been cautioned previously as to exceeding "■ the speed limit. He .was'sure that he. had "not exceeded ,six, f miles-an hour, while he was crossing "the . bridge.;—By ..'Mr .Christie: He "had riot noticed anyone on the bridge but a lady. -He might liave r seen • the •.-. traffic.: inspector, but: did not remember .halving seen him. He. had a three-speed "gear and could easily get tdown to six miles an hoiifrJ—His' Worship stated-that v he : wbuld have-'-'to 1 give defendant the credit of being the only person ../before , the Ashburton Court who had admitted that the speed of motor-cycles cbu'ld be reduced to six miles an hour. .-."A fine of 40s was imposed. ..•;..'■ .-. • ...'. Thomas Murray was charged with a similar offence, alleged to have taken place on November 16,' 1913.—Defendant did not appear, and a; fine of 40s was imposed. .. ,- .... The adjourned case against .William Beech (Mr Kennedy) for cycling without a light after nightfall-was" continued .-—-John Blackler stated that-the alleged offence took olace between.' r 8.30" and 8.45—8y Mr Kennedy: HeYqld defendant that if ii had hot been for someone being with him lie woiild hot have taken action. Witness had found, out what time the sun set, before he laid the. information. Defendant was hot long after the time allowed by; the by-law. There was no fog at the time. Witness'" did not think that he interpreted the by-law very strictly .—- John Thomas Maltby Priest stated that the offence had occurred between 8.30 p.m. and 8.40. It was dark'-and they were not able to recognise defendant more than a chain away. They, might not have taken any notice of the defendant but for a remark made by a passer-by. By Mr Kennedy: If defendant swore that it was not 8.30 p.m. witness would not contradict- him, but witness could swear it was_after 8.30 p.m.—William Henry Higgins gave corroborative evidence. He and another person had expected two cyclists who had. previously gone by to be summoned for riding without lights, and had remarked that they thbiight they would.be ; summoned. . —-William ' .Beech, stated . that,, he left, home atT 8.20 p.ni. oriyhis bicycle and went about a quarter of a mile" to feed his horsesj which work usually took about seven.minutes. He would swear, positively that it was hot later than 8.30. Just as he met Mr Bladder the clock had - struck the half-hour. The night was foggy, a mist- coming up after sunset.—His Worship remarked that the by-law allowed an hour after sunset, and the sun had set at 7.27 on \ the date in question, and defendant admitted that the time was as late as 8.30. He thought that when the by-law was a liberal one cyclists should be all the most careful. He would not impose a fine, but defendant would, have, to pay costs. ■■-" ■;■■
Children Absent from School. '. John 'Albert Blank (Truancy Inspector) charged Charles Drummond " with failing to send two sons. and. a v daughter to school the required number of days.-^Defehdant did not. appear, but forwarded a letter stating that ;his" wife was ill and had had to undergo:..;;an operation, and through that and other causes he had not been able to spare the children.' —A fine of 5s and" costs was imposed in two of the cases, and the other case was adjourned to, April 17, at the request of the Inspector.Civil Cases. Judgment by. default was delivered in the following cases:—Hallenstein Bros., Ltd. (Mr Buchanan) v. Edward J. Bright, claim (£l. 7s ,6d; J. A. Stephens (Mr Buchanan) v.. Ernest Campbell, claim £7j J. A- Stephens ,(Mr. Buchanan) v. William Stephens, .claim £4 19s;:!5d; Robertson and "-Co. v: E. Bbbcbck, claim £17 Os 3d j. Tyn-eIL ; James Turtill v. James Wilkie, : claim : -£S 7s 6d;-; ; Orum Bros, and Dyhrberg (Mr Buchanan), v. J., -Moffatt, claim £11 15s. '"] .■■■■■•■■■■:<*■ - Friedlander Bros., Ltd., claimed £9 17s 9d from James Giidsell (Mr Buch-,-anan). , £51165' 6d, had .been paid into Court" in satisfaction "of the claim, and the case was adjourned for a fortnight. ; "'
Permanent link to this item
ASHBURTON.—THIS DAY., Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXIII, Issue 8799, 20 February 1914
ASHBURTON.—THIS DAY. Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXIII, Issue 8799, 20 February 1914
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.