MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19270, 8 June 1926, Page 1

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

TUESDAY, JUNE S. (Before Mr J, R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default, with costs, was given in each of the following cases:— Stronaoh, Morris, and Co., Ltd. v. John Matthews (Puketeraki), £ll 14s Id, account stated; D.J.C., Ltd. v. S. Simraonds (Greyniouth), £lB 19s, goods sold; Robert M’Conniek v. Percy Ksiiih (Balclutha)’-) £l3 10s 3d, goods sold; Carpenters and Joiners’ Union v. J. F. Clark, £3 14s 6d, dues owing; John Douglas Best v. Henry R. Bartlett (Invercargill), £1 18s, goods supplied; Isabella Taylor v. Albert Edward Taylor, £l3 10s, maintenance line under a separation agreement; Laidlaw and Gray, Ltd. v. W. Gamble (Greymouth), £49 Os 4d, goods supplied. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Hogg and Co.. Ltd. (Mr W. L. Moore) proceeded against J. W. T. Frew on a judgment summons for the recovery of (lie sum of £25 11s 3d. Debtor was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, together with £1 6s costs, in default three weeks’ imprisonment. A COLLISION CASE. ! Arising out of a collision at the corner of Cargill road and Fox street. George Bracllord Brand proceeded against Jesso Charles Nicholls for the recovery of £39 6s 6d, made up as follows ;—Lass of wages £2O 12s, repairs to motor cycle £ls 19s Gd, cartage 2s 6d, and doctor's fee £2 12s 6d. It was alleged by. plaintiff that the collision occurred between the parties as the result of defendant's recklessness and carelessness in driving his motor car. Defendant counter-claimed for the sum of £8 10s, damages sustained to his car, which he alleged, was due to plaintiff’s recklessness and carelessness. Mr J. B. Callau, instructed by Messrs Aspinall and Sim, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr G. T. Bayleo for defendant. Mr Callan said that the case arose c#t.t of a collision between plaintiff and defendant at 6.45 p.m. on Sunday, January 31. Plaintiff was riding a motor cycle, and defendant was driving a motor car. The former was travelling down Cargill road in the direction of Forbury Corner, and defendant was coming in towards Cargill’s Corner. The collision took place at tho intersection

of Fox street, Brand being on bis correct side, 4ft or sft from the left kerb, just before the accident took place. When plaintiff’s first saw defendant’s car it was in the middle of the road, There was plenty of clearance, but, unfortunately, defendant went down Fox street, it being contended that- he did so by badly cutting the corner. The motor horn was not sounded, nor did defendant giro any signal of his intention to turn into Fox street. If Brand ,had kept straight on he would have had a head-on collision with the car. In order to avoid this he endeavored to turn into Fox street, hitting the side of the car. Evidence on the lines of counsel’s statement was given, hy the plaintiff. Witness said that bis ankle, shin, and thigh had been injured in the accident, and he had been away from work for four weeks. The motor cycle was damaged, and had been taken to a local garage for repairs. ■To Mr Baylee: Witnes was certain that he did not have his hands in his pockets when the collision occurred. Ho was travelling at between twelve and fifteen miles an hour. Witness could not explain why he had not swerved to the right instead of taking the course he had done. (Proceeding.) ■