LOWER HUTT COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 267, 5 August 1920, Page 7

LOWER HUTT COURT

The monthly sitting of the Lower Hlfß. Magistrate's. Court was held yesterday,. Mr. J. S. Evans, S.M., and Mr. 0. B. Robertso'n, J.l'., prosißlng. - .' For driviug motor-cars through the borough at an excessive speed, th© following were each fined,£3, with costs'2os. 6d.:— J.VR. H'Kenzie,' L. G. Halpin,' Morgan, Hunt, O. Smith, <and J. H. Reynolds. There were two charges agajnst F. I l '. NewtoHa. who was fined £3, with costs 285., on tile lirst, and £4, with' costs 20s. 6d„ on the second. For riding a motor-cycle at a Bpoed exceeding 20 miles per hour, (). Guy was fined 20s. and costs 20s. 6d. Failuro; to provide their bicycles'with lights at nipht was responsible (or tlie following being each fined 10a. and Vs. costs:—C. E. .Binns, F. F.ales, A. J. Man- " sell, F. M'Donnell, G. Doran, V. Hayes, W. Parsons. For riding a bioycle on the footpath, T. Hetert was fined 20s. and 7s. costs. ' For allowing stook to wander, J, Glenn, R. Watson, and TV. J. Willis were each fined ss. and 7s. costs.' W. J. Willis was convicted also of. altering a building without a permit,, and was ordered to pay .costs 7s. • Judgment for plaintiff hy default was given in the following civil cases:—George Chong v. W. Prince, lis. 4d.,' costs 5a.; H. Wiggins v. G. G. Martin, £7 Os. 6d., costs £7 Os,. 6d.; A, G. Mumby v. S. Mead, £25 Is:, costs £2,145. ■ On a judgment summons Too TitenewaS ordered to pay the Lower Hutt Borough Council, within- two months, the sum of £39 13s. 5d., in default 14 days' Imprisonment. In a civil action, H. Wiggins (Mr. E. P. Bunny) , v. ft. O. Hobbs (Mr. Hellish),'a claim for £2 135., plaintiff was non-suited, and ordered to pay costs £1 Is. In the oase Eliza Downs v. John Bae, judgment was entered for plaintiff for £1 165.,, with costs £1 19s. . W. H. Hardy appeared on a charge of stealing, in March last, a bioycle saddl the property of George Chittick. The ■prosecution was conducted by Constable Holmes, _and defendant was represented by Mr. E. P. Bunny.' The Magistrate, after hearing the witnesses, said that while the evidence.rnr the nroßecntlon had not neeu shaken in any way, that of defendant had been very confuse'd. The Bench could see no reason to doubt the evidence of the police, and could not accept defendants version of the affair. ■■ He would le found guilty of the theft. In view of. the taut that he had a wife and family de« pendent- upon him, he would not be sent to gaol,, but would bo fined £3. On the application of his counsel, defendant was fillowed a month in which to pay.