MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19952, 23 August 1928, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, AUGUST 23. (Before Air J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment. for ilie plaintiffs was given in the following undefended casesßobert AUCormiek v. .Bert Brown, £(j 17s Bel, goods supplied; r f. Senrr, Ltd., v. G. Gordon, £2 13s Gd, goods supplied; Roberta. Simpson v. Lena .Hanley, £3 18s, amount due on an account; Neavo Isaac v. William Hampstead, sen. (Alocraki). £2 2s, goods supplied; Wilson and Claridgojv. J. Robertson (Invercargill), £(> 15s, goods supplied; Crust and Crust v. John Menzics (Westport), £7 Lis 2d, shipping and forwarding charges; Woolnougb Window Company, lid., v. T. A. Hill (Hastings), £ll, goods supplied; Donald Reid and Co., Lid., v, Robert Morrison (Otakou), 13s costs; Bruce Railway and Coal Company v. Cyril Bcecroft, 10s costs. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. John Stewart was ordered to pay J. Waters Bs. with costs 17s, for goods supplied, in default one day's imprisonment. SEQUEL TO MOTOR ACCIDENT. Tho sequel to a-collision between a motor car and a stationary tramcar on July LI, 1927. was heard in a case in which William Alexander Bracegirdle (Mr .A. P. Thomson) proceeded against Joseph Thomas Woolley (Mr 0. J. Cook) in a claim for £B3, stated to be tho value of tho car wrecked in the accident. The defendant entered a counter-claim for £lO 17.5. for work done and materials supplied. Air Thomson said that the plaintiff lent his car to the defendant, at the latter’s request. While proceeding in a northerly direction, the defendant collided with n, stationery tramcar at tho intersection of Princes ami Alaitland streets, and then continued for a distance of approximately 200yds. The plaintiff alleged that the accident was caused by tho negligence of the defendant in driving the car while in a state of intoxication, and in failing to control and stop the car. Tho plaintiff claimed that, as a result of the collision, the car was so damaged as to be useless and not worth repairing. Tho value of the car was £IOO, and the plaintiff obtained from the remains after the accident parts worth not inure than £l3. Evidence was given by Richard Trevor Steelman and Ernest Charles Amitago, who stated that before the ncci dent- thev would value the car at £7O.

The defendant's evidence was submitted to llio in from Invercargill. “ The delendant cuts a very poor figure in this caso,” said the Magistrate. lie .smashed up Ids friend’s ear. and made no effort to recompense him. Obviously no reliance can bo placed on his evidence, which can he very well ignored. With respect to tho counter claim, it is hardly conceivable tiiat the defendant, a motor mechanic himself, should borrow another man’s car, go trips to Waipori and elsewhere, and then charge him tor insignificant work. This is not a case to view too narrowly, and 1 shall take the value of the ear as £7O, and give judgment for that amount, less the value of (he parts realised. £15.” Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff for £55, with court costs ('£s ss), solicitors’ fees (£-1 os'), Invercargill fees f£] 17s (id), and witness’ expenses (£4 10s).