MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21967, 16 December 1936, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

TUESDAY (Before Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M.) FAILURE TO MAKE RETURNS KOir and Thompson, Ltd., builders, «t Rangiora (Mr* H. O. Jacobsen) pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to furnish income tax returns. Mr A. W. Brown, for the Commissioner of Taxes, said the company had been considerably late in making its returns and the department prosecuted only in extreme cases. Mr Jacobsen. said that an accountant prepared the returns, and through a mistake in his office they had not been M nt in. , nn , „„ Defendants were fined £3 and ordered to pay costs. . A similar charge against H. W. D. Rogers,, storekeeper, of Waiau (Mr Jacobgen), was described by Mr Brown as, a fairly bad case. For years defendant had been late in furnishing returns. The returns for 1935 and this year had not yet come to hand. For defendant, Mr Jacobsen said he was a storekeeper who travelled over •"the country a good deal, and there was some difficulty in getting his returns done to time. A fine of £6 was imposed. A similar charge against Charles Taylor," of Rangiora (Mr Jacobsen), was another bad case, Mr Brown said, Defendant was one who always waited for the default assessments before sending in his returns. Mr Jacobsen said Taylor was a partner in Keir and Thompson, Ltd., and 'he facts were really the same as in that case. Taylor was fined £3 and ordered to pay costs. SERIOUS CHARGES. A plea of not guilty to each of three charges of incest, between December, 1935, and April, 1936, was entered by John Michael Dolan, a farmer, aged 32, of Mount Hutt, Rakaia, who appeared on remand from December 8. The court was cleared for the hear* tag of the evidence. Accused was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. A younger brother, Paul Brendon Dolan, aged 19, a labourer (Mr F. P. Hill), pleaded guilty on a similar charge, and was committed to the supreme Court for sentence. Bail was renewed for the same amount- and terms as when remands Were previously granted.

• • ■**'•■.'■'■'•■' ■' and Gresham v. Royden Copeland, £3 15s; J. H. Pickles v. J. H. Barbour £l7 lis sd; Turner and Le Brun, Ltd., v. C. Capell, £3 6s; W. H. Robinson v. F. W. Clements, £4 8s 4d; Harris Bros., Ltd., v. L. Clinton, £1 14s; A F Suth-! erland v. W. J. Bowes, £1 ss; W. E. Munday and Sons, Ltd., v. Len c. Hammond, £8 5s sd; North Canterbury Hospital Board v. J. H. Dack, 10s; same v. J. P. Higgins, £2 6s 6d; same v. W. A. Jarden, £6 10s 6d; same v. H. L. Varnham, 19s 6d; same v. A. C. W. White, £7 4s; Annette Clifford v. Ernest Adams, £2B 10s; Ida C. Allenby v. Albert Kay, £4 6s 6d; A. A. Marsack v. Chas. Oscar Salvin, £4; S. Stephens v. Laurence Madeley, £1 8s sd; Vale and Company, Ltd.. v. C. S. Livingstone. £2 Is lid; same v. Frederick Woodcock, £2 12s 7d; National Mortgage and Agency Company, Ltd.. v. M. Scollard. £lB lis sd. JUDGMENT SUMMONS L. Collins was ordered to pay Seymour and Turnbull, Ltd., £3 ss. in default four days' imprisonment, warrant to be suspended as long as defendant pays 5s a week. RESERVED JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF "I am satisfied that the damage was not all caused by the impact of the collision," said Mr F. F. Reid, S.M., in giving reserved judgment for plaintiff for £37 8s lid in the case in which J. A. Fahy claimed £.83 19s 3d from Todd Motors, Ltd. Fahy claimed that a servant of the defendant company drove a car negligently and thus damaged his own vehicle. Mr C. V. Lester apeared for plaintiff and Mr W. J. Hunter for defendant. CLAIM FOLLOWS COLLISION James Norris, a company manager, I of Christchurch, claimed from Arthur | Dawson, a taxi-driver, £4l as' damages and loss alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff, in the statement of his claim, alleged that Dawson so negligently and unskilfully drove and managed a motor-car that ft came into collision with plaintiffs car, which was damaged. Mr C. V. Lester appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Alan Brown for the defendant. Several witnesses were called. In entering a non-suit against the plaintiff, the magistrate remarked that he was satisfied that from the evidence there had been no negligence on the part of the defendant. Costs were allowed the defendant.