MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Feilding Star, Volume 5, Issue 1032, 17 February 1927, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

I'OKTXKiIITLT RTTTIXO TO-DAY. (Before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M.) A first offending . inebriate, found in Stafford street at 12.5 o’clock this morning, was convicted' and lined 10s, the amount of his hail. The case of Houlf v, Hoult, which has’ occupied .several previous sittings of the Court, was further adjourned h.v leave of the Court until March 3. The complainant makes application for separation and maintenance from her husband on the grounds of alleged persistent cruelty. The defendant lias yet to call his witness in Hie case.

CIVIL LTST Judgment was given plaintiff by default in (lie following undefended civil actions': W. IT. Bain and Co. (Air J. Graham) v. AT. Hirst, £3 os, costs 23s fid ; r p. p. Clark and others (Air Graham) v. A. A. Alireliell, £2OO, costs £!) ss; W. Quayle (Air Pagan) v. It. Smith, £1 12s 7d, costs 8s: Oscar Pearson (Air Pagah) V. J, 11.- Dixon. £9 16s. costs 31s 6d: A. JI. Lane (Nlr Elliott) v. IV. A. Keith, £9O. costs £5 14s fid: Chappell Bros. (Air Pagan) v. P. S. Harrison, £2 13s, costs 23s fid: George Pbillips (Mr Wallace) v. Edward Kronast. £34 13s. costs £4 11s. .1 UDGAIENT SUMMONS. On a judgment summons, F. E. Willoughy, showman and carnival promoter, of Alasterton. was ordered to pay Trigger and Taylor, wholesale confectioners, Hastings (Air Hill), the amount, owing, £24 14s fid, in default 21 days’ imprisonment, Hie writ to lie suspended so long as debtor pays. £5 monthly, the first instalment to bo made on. March 17.

SEP AR A TION AND MAINTENANCE J ... , . On account of the v s.ord.idness of certain evidence to be* given in the Lewis v. Lewis case, in which Harriet Lewis sought an order for separation, and maintenance from her husband., John LewjsV on the ground's of cruelty, the Court was ordered to he cleared for the hearing. Mr Graham appeared, for the complainant. and Mir Pagan for the defendant'. x A separation order was made and maintenance for the wife fixed at 30s per uteek and ss. per week for each of three children. Lewis was further ordered t O . pay certain costs. SPORLE v. THOMPSON. Oliver Sporie. carpenter, Feilding, (Mr Cullinane) proceeded against C. H. Thompson, taxi driver (Air Graham), claiming £33 7s -id damages sustained by the plaintiff in a collision resulting from the defendant’s alleged careless, negligent and unskilful handling of a motor car in Manchester Square on October 10 last. The defendant counter-claim-ed for damages totalling £7l 7s. alleging that plaintiff carelessly and negligently drove liifc motor car as td cause it to collide with that of the defendant, '• By agreement the claim and the counter-claim were heard in conjunction. Mr Cullinane opened on behalf of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in evidence stated Hint: on the evening of Sunday. October 10, he was proceeding up Manchester street in a Ford sedan car when be noticed the. bright lights ot another ear coining - from the direction of Hastie’s hotel around the corner where stands the Bank of Australasia. He sounded his horn and slackened speed, keeping well on his correct: side of the street. The other ear carried a spot light and plaintiff was temporarily blinded. He felt the defendant’s car strike his solidly. The impact; was severe causing considerable damage to both oars and injuries to plaintiff. In reply to bis .enquiry, tlio defendant; replied that, lie did not know anything about the affair until 1m went through the windscreen. Plaintiff asked defendant; if lie was hurt, but he replied he was not, although he was then going to hospital with a bad loot, after having left; Mr Power at the Denbigh hotel. Plaintiff had defendant’s ear towed to Perry’s gar-

age. Plaintiff, Thomson, and another named Piebig went to plaintiff’s homo, where they had refreshments. Thompson said then that he did not; know what the he had been doing. He must; have changed gears at the time of the collision. Next morning plaintiff saw Thompson and both agreed that the matter should be reported to the police. Thompson did not want a lawsuit. Plaintiff understood the defendant, to say that; he would “lix him up” when he was out ot debt. Plaintiff mentioned to Thompson that he was on the wrong side of the street -and this was not denied. Plaintiff was well on the left side

of the street up which he was proceeding. Plaintiff believed that defendant’s vision might have been obscured by the fact that ills car was closely curtained, there being one blank curtain on each side of the windscreen. The night was a wet one with drizzling rain. Both cars lights and street lights were burning. Plaintiff suffered injuries, incurring medical expenses. Ilis ear was damaged and he had lost time at his employment.' Cross-examined by Mr Graham, plaintiff said he approached the Bank of Australasia .corner at a speed not greater than 10 miles per hour. When he saw the lights of defendant’s car rund in the direction of Power’s office he slackened speed considerably. Whether defendant had his car in second or third gear lie did not know. Defendant did not sound his horn and lie admitted'to plaintiff that; lie did not. Plaintiff’s car was danfaged to the extent of £!(» and that of defendant for repair work necessaary cost £so. It was absurd to think that, because defendant’s car, a much heavier vehicle, should have been almost wrecked because it collided with a moving object, Pliantiff main-

tained that the car had sustained greater damage because it was travelling at a fair pace, at an angle, and struck a solid, stationary obstruction. (Luncheon adjournment). ..