MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21004, 19 January 1932, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, JANUARY 19.

(Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

DEFAULT CASES.

Judgment, with costs, was given for plaintufs by default in the following cases: —Butterworth Bros. v. E, Coory, £1 13s lid, costs of claim j G. F. Bewley and Sons (Macandrew Bay) v. Talbot Leslie Johnston (Broad Bay), £3 16s 9d, goods supplied; J. and A. Wilkinson Ltd. v. Robert M‘Arthur (Balfour), £2 lls 6d, goods supplied; Otago Hospital Board v. North O’Neill, £3 IDs, hospital maintenance due; W. D. and H. O. Wills (New Zealand) Ltd. v. Herbert Pygall (Oamaru), £6 17s 9d, goods uspplied; Firestone Distributors (Otago and Southland) v. H. Markham Ltd., £lO 12s 10d, goods supplied; C. W. Pattillo v. A. Brooks, £2 3s 6d, photographic work done; Essie Mack v. Robert A. Allen (Wylie’s Crossing), £6, rent due; 'AV. D. and H. O. Wills v. Charles Edward Tippett (Lime Hills), £3 15s, goods supplied; Bradley and Claridge v. Andrew Duncan (Invercargill), £3 10s, goods supplied; H. E. Sapsford (Roxburgh) v. 0. Bedford £2 17s, goods supplied; AVise and Co. (N.Z.) Ltd. v. George Toogood (Wellington), £l, cost of advertisement; Texas Company (Australasia) Ltd v. A. T. Drain (AVoodend), £5 7s 4d, goods supplied; Otago Hospital Board v. A. AVebb, £2 Bs, hospital maintenance. JUDGMENT SUMMONS/ Robert Veitch was ordered to pay the Electrical Sales Agency Ltd. the sum of £8 7s 6d (costs 11s) forthwith, in default nine days’ imprisonment. MOTOR CYCLIST’S CLAIM. John Morris James proceeded against Frederick 6. Nichol on a claim to recover £3O 15s 6d, being special damages (£25 15s 6d) and general damages (£5) arising from a motor collision at the intersection of George and Union on November 7 last. Counsel for the plaintiff said that the claim arose out of a motor collision at the intersection of. Union and George streets on the easterly side. The allegation was that the defendant, who was proceeding north along George street, turned into Union street without traversing the centre line of the intersection. In other words, he cut the corner. It was alleged that defendant gave no warning of his intention to turn into Union street, and the result was a collision with the plaintiff, who was riding a motor cycle with a sidecat attached. The defendant’s car was not damaged, but plaintiff’s cycle and sidecar was damaged to the extent of £25 15s 6d. , For the defence it was stated that the defendant admitted cutting the corner, but it was alleged that the immediate and near cause of the accident was the speed at which the plaintiff was travelling at the time of the accident. Defendant would say that he sounded the horn, put out his hand, and proceeded across the crown of the road at no more than ten miles per hour. 1 (Proceeding.)