Magistrate’s Court TWO YEARS’ DISQUALIFICATION FOR DANGEROUS DRIVING

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29240, 25 June 1960, Page 4

Magistrate’s Court TWO YEARS’ DISQUALIFICATION FOR DANGEROUS DRIVING

On charges resulting from overtaking another car on an intersection at 40 miles an hour, Robert Perry, aged 33, a freezing worker, was fined £3O, and his driver’s licence was cancelled for two years, when he appeared before Mr A. P. Blair, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. . Perry, who was represented by Mr B. J. Drake, pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving, failing to stop after an accident, and failing to ascertain if anyone was injured. He was convicted and fined £l5 on each of the first two charges, and convicted and discharged on the third. > Perry was overtaking a car at the intersection of Madras and Hereford streets at an admitted speed of 40 miles an hour, when he realised too late that the car ahead was turning right, said Sergeant E. S. Tuck.

Perry attempted to get through, but hit the other car. damaging its front mudguard, bumper, and headlight. Perry failed to stop after the accident and continued on at an increased speed. Perry had a number of previous traffic convictions, said Sergeant Tuck. •'Perry admits this was a poor piece of driving, and he realises he should have stopped,” said Mr Drake. “The loss of his licence will result in a heavy financial loss, as he will have to find other means of transport to work.”

Although Perry had a previous conviction for dangerous driving, and other traffic convictions, it was two years and a half since he had had any accident, Mr Drake said. »

In cancelling Perry’s driver's licence, the Magistrate said that a person of his driving behaviour was not fit to have a licence. INCONSIDERATE PARKING Since Charles Hikana Barrett had refused to take the advice of a constable who had asked him to move on when his car was obstructing a cycle stand outside the Tivoli Theatre on a Friday evening, he would be fined something more than usual, the Magistrate said. Barrett, a labourer, who did not appear, was convicted and fined £3 for inconsiderate parking.

Constable L. W. Lippman gave evidence that he saw Barrett sitting in the driver’s seat of a car obstructing the cycle stand, and flashed a torch signal to Barrett to move on. Barrett acknowledged the signal but did not drive off.

He approached Barrett, who said he would move on when he was ready. Again asked to move on. Barrett gave the same reply. "In view of his attitude, I told him I would report him,” Constable Lippman said. REMEMBERED LITTLE OF ACCIDENT

Patrick Leslie Plunket, a 19-ygar-old journalist, could remember very little about an accident he was involved in while riding a motor-scooter along Harper avenue on May 27, he told the Magistrate when he pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention-

The Court was told that Plunket had pulled out to pass a car on Harper avenue and had collided with an oncoming car. He had suffered a fractured skull, had been in hospital for 10 or 12 days, and had suffered some permanent disfigurement. His motor-scooter had been extensively damaged. “I will take into account that you have punished yourself to a considerable extent,” the Magistrate told Plunket, convicting and fining him £2. ACCIDENT WHEN BACKING

Backing his car out of a driveway in Moncks Spur, Warren Sabine Pasley, aged 29, a bread vendor, ran into a car going along Moncks Spur,’ said Sergeant E. S. Tuck. Pasley, who pleaded guilty to a charge of driving without due care on May 24, was convicted and fined £4. CHARGE DISMISSED A charge against Gretchen Eliott, a married woman, of cycling over a compulsory stop in Ranfurly street on to Springfield road on May 19 without stopping was dismissed. Giving evidence against the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Constable A. Laverack said he was on cycle patrol along Springfield road about 4.15 p.m. when he saw her ride over the stop “right in front of him.'’ After hearing defence submissions by Mr G. R. Laaeellea and

Mrs Eliott’s own evidence, the Magistrate dismissed the charge, saying that there was an element of doubt, and that it was possible the constable was mistaken in his observation.

OTHER TRAFFIC CHARGES In other traffic charges, convictions were entered and fines imposed as follows: Driving without due care: Walter Henry Davey, £4 (no warrant of fitness. £1); Sidney Ivan James McMillan, £4; (no warrant of fitness. £1); Eric William Wiles, £5.

Failing to give way: Charles James Angel. £3; Barrie Gilchrist, £5; Gustave Frederick Young, £4; Desmond George Keats, £6; Graham Elvin Le Compte, £5; Leonard Sinett, £4. Failing to give way at give-way sign: Gerard Joseph Leers, £3. Driving against lights: Peter Arnold Waghorn, £5.

No warrant of fitness: Ronald Edwin Trevor Mauger. £1: George Edward Tinkler, £l.

SHOPLIFTING

Daphne Muriel Morgan, aged 39. a housewife, who was apprehended for shoplifting from the High street branch of Woolworths. Ltd., on June 23. already had 25 previous convictions for similar offences, said Sergeant V. F. Townshend.

The accused, who pleaded guilty to a charge of theft of razor blades, soap, and stockings valued at 9s IJd, was remanded on bail to July 1 for sentence. Sergeant Townshend said she was seen to hide the articles in her clothing. She was accompanied by a man with whom she lived but he took no part in the thefts.

(Before Mr E. A. Lee. S.M.) DECISION RESERVED

Decision was reserved on a claim by Alister Joseph Andrew West’ a commercial traveller (Mr E. P. Wills), for £lOO paid to Trevor John Adams as deposit on a section purchased from Adams but later found to have a Drainage Board easement which restricted building to one corner of the site.

Mr K. Hadfield appeared for the defendant.

Evidence was given that' the plaintiff agreed to buy the section in Deloraine street. Spreydon, for £9OO, and made a deposit of £lOO. The plaintiff later found that the Drainage Board easement nearly bisected the prooerty. He could not use the section as a normal building site and rescinded the sale agreement, but the deposit had not been returned.

Th§ plaintiff alleged that at no time before the signing of the agreement had the easement been disclosed by the defendant. Mr Hadfield submitted that there was no- duty on the defendant to disclose the easement, which was provided for in the contract.

“A prudent purchaser would have searched the title of the nroperty.” he said. The basis of the plaintiff’s claim was that it was not a normal building section, so that if it could be shown ♦hat it was a normal section there was no case to answer.

The site had since been sold for £BOO, and its purchaser had built a house of 1400 sq. ft, said Mr Hadfield. The defendant, in evidence, said his father handled the sale while he was overseas. He admitted to Mr Wills that he would have advised the purchaser of the easement if he had handled the sale, and that £BOO was the best he could get for it from the eventual purchaser, who was told of the easement.