DOMINION ITEMS

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 April 1927, Page 7

DOMINION ITEMS

(Per Preus Association.)

FIRE AT NAPIER

NAPIER, April 9

An empty store and an unoccupied house adjoining were destroyed by lire at West Shore this morning. The property w r as owned by D. Donovan (Hastings). The insurances are unavailable.

OTAKI BURGLARY OTAKI, April 9

Another burglary has been committed here, the premises of the Novelty Company being entered. Tobacco and cigarettes w’ere stolen last night. This was the fourth burglary within tw’o weeks.

AFTER THREE' YEARS. BLENHEIM, April 9.

The law’s long arm reached out this morning and arrested George Albert Mehretens, who has been wanted for three years at Ashburton for allegedly defrauding Pyne, Gould, Guinness and Co., and selling sheep- which were the subject of an instrument of secur i tv.

He was remanded to appear at Ashburton on April 14.

SPEED BY-LAW.

CHRISTCHURCH, April 8

A by-law of the Riccarton Borough situated just outside the city boundary on the Main South and West Road, was attacked in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. The by-law prescribes that motors must reduce their speed to fifteen miles an hour when within two chains of an intersection. It was argued that the speed prescribed was needlessly slow, and that, in any case, the reduced speed over so great a zone as two chains before an intersection was unnecessary. Decision was reserved.

DROVER’S CLAIM FAILS. NAPIER, April 7.

Louis William Vaultsaid failed in his claim in the Arbitration Court today, against J. A. Miller, sheep-farmer, for compensation for injuries received as the result of an accident. The evidence showed that plaintiff was employed to drove sheep for defendant. After putting the sheep in a paddock for the night, plaintiff rode away on his horse, which stumbled, and plaintiff suffered injury. Counsel argued that the employment of a drover was continuous, as in the case of seamen and domestic servants, and that plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to compensation. The Court disagreed with this view and dismissed the case, though Mr Justice Frazer agreed that responsibility was continuous.