RIVAL BUS DRIVERS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 4898, 18 June 1918, Page 3

RIVAL BU S DRIVERS.

CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION

CONVICTED RECORDER'.

The adjourned hearing of the charge against' Stanley Moore, ’bus driver, of wilful obstruction on the Ormond Road came before Mr-W. A. Barton, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon;- The cfise had been adjourned, on the application of Mr Coleman, who desired an opportunity to produce the evidence 1 of passengers on the ’bus on the day of the alleged offence. Mr Coleman said the evidence he would put before the Court would have reference to the 8.30 trip. only. The evidence so far was most inclusive. He urged that the evidence of ' Goodall and Folley was not reconcilable in . SO' far as it relatedl toi what occurred at Ripley’s store. There was no other evidence in regard to the 8.30 run against defendant. Many Elizabert AYhinray, said she frequently travelled by. Foster’s ’bus-and on the date named in the information, she came in on the 8.30 ’bus driven by Moore. She got on board at Ripley’s store. At that time. Bell’s ’bus was just behind. When starting for town Foster’s big ’bus led, Bell’s ’bus following. There was plenty of room for Bells driver to pass on his right siclo oi the road and on the metal. ~ She had never noticed any attempt to block Bell’s i? bus. . . , _ ‘ To Mr Burnard: You say that Foster’s ’bus went first. Do you know that all the other witnesses have stated that Bell’s ’bus went first? Is it not possible that you are making a- mistake? Witness: I don’t think so. Erin Walker, a bank clerk, said she was a frequent traveller by ’bus from Mangapapa. and was on the ’bus when there was a transhipment of Xiassengers from the small ’bus to the big one on May 17. She was one of the passengers who changed at Ripley’s store. She did not remember seeing Bell’s ’bus at the-store, nor did she see it later on the*way to town. She did not remember seeing Mrs Whinray in the ’bus on that day. The big ’bus left first and Mrs Whin ray may have, got in the little ’bus after witness, had left. She bad never noticed Mr Moore blocking Bell’s ’bus. Rene Manson said she was a passenger by the ’bus on May 17 at 8.30 a.m. It was a Friday and sv _ wet day. > She travelled by the small ’bus, changing at Ripley’s store to the big ’bus. When the big bus started off Bell’s ’bus had no., airived at the store. On the way into town she did not see anything of Bell’s ’bus. The little ’bus had to wait 10 minutes for Mrs Whinray. To Mr Burnard: She was first asked to recall what happened on May 27 about a week ago. To Mr Coleman: She .came in _hv the ’bus nearly even* day and during the past six weeks she had noticed no obstruction of Bell’s ’bus.. Edna Radfield said she resided m Ormond Road and only used the _ bus to come into town on wet mornings. She remembered May 17 because _ it was a very wet morning. She got into the ’bus at Ripley’s store. She eoukl not say which ’bus left first for town and could not recollect having seen Bell’s ’bus before reaching the Post Office at all that morning. The blinds were down when she got into the ’bus. To Mr Burnard: So you could not see .anything and could not sav whether there was any. obstruction or not? Witness: No. • - •Cecil Malfroy Munsell said he unnllv travelled to town hr the ’bus He saw no obstruct'on on May 17 —decidedly not. He did not see Bell’s ’bus. ‘ The little ’bus was nractirally on the footpath at Rip'ey s. When a man paid three pence for a

ride into town lie .was not looking for trouble. ’ b To Mr Burnard: He was not sure as to the date. < Stanley Redwood said he. travelled by Foster’s big ’bus oil May 17 to town. He boarded the ’bus at Valley Road and could not remember seeing Bell’s ’bus at that time. Later he saw Foster’s- little ’bus followed by Bell’s ’bus. ••'This would be about half way between Valley *Ro«d and Ripley’s store. The big ’bus stopped at the store. The curtains were down on both sides and nothing could be seen .outside. The big ’bus stopped at Ripley’s store and the little ’bus ran round to the left. He did not notice Bell’s ’bus. The Magistrate said there was a good deal of conflict in the evidence; but ' the evidence of the witnesses showed that there was some difficulty in fixing the date. He was satisfied that there had been wilful obstruction by defendant and it was done with the object of stopping Goodall from -getting past. Goodall should-have been allowed a halt.nliare of the road. It was very necessary to the safety of tlie public that tlie by-law 11 should be strictly enforced If this kind of. tiling was allowed to go on tlie safety of the rpubhc would be endangered.' In the previous case {one of assault! be was satished that there, bad also been obstruction. Defendant was fined £1 with costs 17s, witnesses’ expenses £1 os, and solicitor’s fee £2 2s, in default 7 days’ imprisonment. The charge against Foster yas with dr awn. ' ~