MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19196, 12 March 1926, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

- _J__—-fr THURSDAY, MARCH 11. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M>) A MOTOR ACCIDENT. ( ■ The- case was continued in winch James • Alexander M'Bride proceeded against Edmund Findlater and Susan Findlater on a claim for £34 los fad for injuries received through tho ncglicent driving'of a, motor car. Other grounds were' excessive speed and tailing to apply the brakes or to stop in sufficient time, to avoid colliding with plaintiff. The details of the sum claimed were t Hospital charges ~o los, loss of. wages £2O, and damages to clothing £7 17s 6d. , ~ Mr ' Sinclair submitted that Mrs Findlater was entitled to ask for a non-suit. She was tho owner ol the car.—Mr Hanlon said h,o would accept a non-suit so far as Mrs Findlater was concerned. , A hon-smt was accordingly entered in regard to Mrs I*indlater. .. . Mr Sinclair, continuing, said that the evidence given by plaintiff was somewhat extraordinary. It had been suggested by the last witness that defendant had driven the car at an excessive speed, that he must have seen these two men. and that he had callously and recklessly knocked one ot them over. If that were so, defendant could 'have had a criminal chaxgc laid against him. But there,must lie some explanation that would justify clatendant in acting as ho did act m the circumstances. The defence would ho a contradiction ■ of the statements sworn to by plaintiff’s witnesses. Defendant -would say that he was going along on his right side of the road, and that those two men suddenly -ame out from the theatre and. without looking round, ,V SasseJ jsa to the street, .and that he

(defendant) had no time to avoid the accident. Neither of the men looked to see whether any car was approaching, and it was impossible for defendant to avoid an accident. It would be sworn to by thres witnesses that plaintiff had admitted that he was just as much to blame as'defendant was. Evidence was given by defendant, Susan Findlater, and Alexander Findlater. His Worship, gave judgment for plaintiff, with costs (£lO 10s). RENT OP HOUSE. The case of Elizabeth Graham v. T. Scurr,, Ltd., was one in which the plaintiff, who was represented by Mr Bay lee, claimed £B4 10s, being the total difference for a period of twentysix- weeks between the amount paid by her to defendant (£4 10s) and the standard, rent (£1 6s) of a dwellinghouse situated at 123 St. A i«l row street j let by the' defendant to the plaintiff.—Mr Neill appeared for defendant.—Evidence was given on both sides at considerable length in regard to the capital value of property in the neighborhood of the place. One witness for the defence valued the property at £1,403 in 1914,, and was confronted by Mr Baylee with the Government valuation in ’ 1899, which was £BOO. —Counsel addressed tho court at length as to the legal and equitable position, and Mr Bartholomew, in giving iudgment, said he always experienced a difficulty in deciding tl;o question of values. They had the Government valuation of the property in 1899, but frequently these values were very conservative, and had no relation to present-day values at all. So far as ho could see, a fair'■value in 1914 was £1,350, and if that were the value 8 per cent, on it would give a, rental of more than £lO4 a year, which would take tno property outside the section of tho Act. Plaintiff was not entitled to succeed, and judgment would be given for defendant, with costs (£6 19s).