MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 August 1930, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUi.i CASES. Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., presided at the Greymouth Court to-day, and Senior-Sergeant C. E. Roach represented the police. Fifteen statutory first offenders, caught on licensed premises during forbidden hours, were each convicted and ordered to pay costs. Two second offenders were each fined £l, with costs, and a third offender was fined £2, with costs.

William Calder and Samuel Compton, two of the first offenders, pleaded not guilty to being unlawfully on the premises of the Cobden Hotel and the Blackball Hotel respectively, but their excuses were not accepted. For riding an unlighted cycle after sunset, George Thompson was fined 5/-, with 10/- costs. Cycling on the footpath cost Angus Hay 5/-, with 10/- costs. William Neil Brown, for driving a car without a license, was fined 10/ with 10/- costs. Edward William John Lines, the horn on whose car was defective, was fined 10/-, with 10/- costs. The, failure of Walter Fattorini to report a motor accident which occurred at Greymouth on July 5, . a woman being knocked down, cost him 10/-, with 10/- costs. For allowing a horse to- wander. Milner Sweetman was fined 5/-, with 10/- costs. Mr M. B. James appeared for the Greymouth Borough Council, and Inspector W. Cochrane gave evi deuce. .MAINTENANCE CASES. A widow, Mrs Sarah Hill, of Blaketown (Mr A. H. Paterson) proceeded against her son, James Hill (Mr M. B. James) and her daughter, Elizabeth Hill (Mr W. J. Joyce), for contributions towards her support, the claim being resisted by both defendants.

Complainant stated that her husband died about two years ago. She had nine children, three of whom were of school age, and were living with her. Other members of the family were married, and she considered that the present defendants were the only ones able to contribute to her support. She received the widow’s pension. The rent was £1 per week, and £l2 was owing. She had a boarder who paid 30/- per week. She was sorry to bring her children into Court, and would have been content had they given her a little assistance. In reply to Mi- James, complainant denied that the boarder had been out of work for 12 months. She said that he always paid regularly. Mr Joyce: Do you know that this girl is ill, and has had to leave her position in Christchurch? —I did not know she was ill, because she never writes to me.

Mr Joyce produced a medical certificate.

The S.M.: So far as .the charge against the girl is concerned, I don’t see how you can proceed with that, Mr Paterson.

Mr Paterson agreed, and the case against the son was proceeded with. He said that he was employed as a trucker at the State mine, Rewanui, and his average earnings were £5 per fortnight, out of which he had to pay £3 10/- per fortnight for board and washing. He left home on account of the boarder, Hughes. The latter was out of work for 12 months, and during that time never paid board, so far as witness knew. The boarder also came home drunk on several occasions. Witness failed to see why he should support the boarder, so he left home. The boarder was still there, and witness thought he was working on the wharf —he worked when he felt like it.

In reply to the S.M., Hill stated that he would be prepared to return home and pay his board, if the boarder went.

The S.M., after hearing further evidence, said he did not think the complainant had all the merits of the case on her side. Apparently the sole reason why the children left home was that a boarder, who had been out of work, was staying in the house. The son had given evidence on oath that the boarder was there for 12 months while out of work. At present, the son’s wages did not leave him much over. The S.M. expressed the opinion that the mother had been to blame, and dismissed the case. John H. Moore, whose arrears on an order , for the maintenance of his wife amount to £43, was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, the warrant not to issue if defendant pays £5 within seven days and thereafter £1 per week in reduction of the arrears, in addition to the £2 10/- per week payable under the original order.

Walter Batchelor, whose arrears totalled £9 10/- to June 19, on an order for the payment of 10/- per week, was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment if payment is not made within seven days. SEQUEL TO COLLISION. Between 5.30 p.m. and 5.45 p.m. on July 25, a collision occurred at the corner of Mackay and Customs streets, the vehicles involved being a car driven by David Stevenson and a motor lorry driven by Athur Reseigh. As the sequel Reseigh was charged with failing to keep to the left of Mackay Street until he reached the centre-line of Customs Street, and also with failing to give way to a vehicle approaching on his right. Defendant pleaded not guilty and was represented by Mr W. P. McCarthy. The Senior-Sergeant said that Reseigh was driving from the Railway Station along Mackay Street with the intention of turning into Customs Street, to reach Marion Street. Stevenson’s car was coming out of Customs Street, and Reseigh should have given way to it. David Stephenson, manager for John Burns and Co., Greymouth, stated that defendant’s lorry was only 12ft out from the building on his righthand side. Witness did not see him until too late to avoid the collision. It I was a bad corner, and witness always drove slowly there. Constable Paddy stated that ho measured the wheel marks on the lorry on the following morning, and they showed that the lorry had been only 12ft from the right-hand side of Maqkay Street. Defendant’s excuse was that, the only way to enter Marion Street was to drive on his wrong side, but in the opinion of witness he should have been more to his left. Constable Hay produced a statement made by defendenat.

Mr McCarthy submitted that defendant was on his correct side, as

the street was only 18ft wide; and merged with Mackay Street. It was impossible to give way to traffic on the right at that place, because the buildings spoiled the visibility, and a vehicle on the right could not be seen. Both men were experienced drivers, and were travelling slowly. Traffic Inspector Sloss said that it was a bad corner, with a large building obscuring visibility. In his opinion, defendant had adopted the correct course at such a corner.

The Senior-Sergeant: Despite the regulations, you would instruct people to take a route 12ft from the righthand side of a road one and a-half chains wide?—Yes.

What right have you to break the law? —I am not breaking the law. It is not an intersection, for a man to go at right angles at that corner is a RIDICULOUS PIECE OF ROT. The Senior-Sergeant: He is charged with failing to keep to the left of the centre-line of Mackay Street. You say that it is perfectly in order for him to keep 12ft from the right-hand side of Mackay Street? —Yes. So that anyone coming out of Customs Street would not have a hope of seeing him? —If they are driving carefully, accidents should not happen. I would do the same thing myself. We had the same thing in Cowper Street. After further argument, Inspector Sloss said that he did not say whether the course taken by Reseigh was right or wrong, but if it had been left to him to decide, he would certainly have said that defendant was right in approaching the street as he had done. The Senior-Sergeant: You see, the result of what you would do has been a collision?—lt could have been avoided, all the same. Everyone enters a street that way, without swinging out. I have seen dozens doing it. They did it once too often? —I suppose they have done it once too often. The S.M.: Have you given any direct ruling, that that route should be taken by motorists? —No. Defendant, a fruiterer residing at Greymouth, stated that he had premises in Marion Street. The lights were turned on the lorry, and he sounded the horn. He did not know Stevenson’s car was approaching from the right, until a collision was imminent. He drove the lorry along the course he usually adopted. He had been driving for over 20 years, and this was his first accident. Had he kept on Mackay Street until he reached the centre line, he would have had to “shunt” to get into the smaller street.

Mr McCarthy suggested that, as the matter was important from the viewpoint of future policy, the S.M. should inspect the corner. The suggestion was adopted, and decision deferred until this afternoon. In giving his decision the S.M. said Mr McCarthy had contended that the course taken by the lorry was justified. - Traffic Inspector Sloss expressed the same opinion. Mr McCarthy relied on sub-section 15, but in answer to a question which the S.M. had put to Inspector Sloss, the latter denied ever having told anybodj r to take the route taken by defendant in this particular case. The sub-section was meant to imply that when a traffic inspector or a policeman was at the intersection he could direct traffic off the route, even though it may be a breach of the regulations. Mr Sloss had not been there at the time, and had denied having given general directions to follow the course taken by defendant. “In my opinion the driver of the lorry did commit a technical breach of the regulations. I have inspected the locality and see no reason why he should not have kept out to the left. By doing so he would have a clear view before turning into Marion Street. Apparently it has not been his practice to follow the route which on this occasion he did take, but it is dangerous. He will be fined 5/-, with costs 13/-, and witness’s expenses 10/- on the first charge and ordered to pay costs • 10/- on the other charge.”