MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 22 May 1928, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

YESTERDAY’S SITTING. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday, before Mr "W. Meldrum, S.M. A FAULTY HORN. Norman Taylor was charged with having operated a motor vehicle in Perotti Lane, with the warning device not in good order. Anthony Negri, letter carrier, of Blaketown, stated that on April 23rd he was cycling along the road, and was near the corner of a lane Hear the Gilmer Hotel, when defendant’s car came along and knocked him over.

To defendant: Witnes s could not say whether defendant had run into him or witness had run into defendant. Francis William Mclntyre, waterside worker, gave evidence that Beck’s lorry was proceeding slowly along the road when the collision took place. Witness had picked up Negri and taken him into a barber’s shop. Witness had asked defendant what was the mat.; ter with his horn, and defendant said that it wa s brokem

Sergeant Smythe gave evidence that defendant had made a statement to the effect that his horn did not sound well ns ho proceeded from the bye-lane, •Jnd that this was owing to the engine' running slow. Witness had examined defendant’s brakes,, and had found, them all right. The horn was apparently all right, except when the engine was running slow. In reply to a question by Mr Beck (defendant’s employer), witness said that if defendant had been travelling fast, there would probably have been sufficient sound, but at four miles per hour, there would be very little. Defendant stated that the horn had, been in the same condition for the last four years. It. may not have been heard owing to the fact that he was between two buildings. He was going slow at the time, and did his best to avoid an accident.

Albert Sloss. Traffic Inspector, gave evidence that, at the request of Mr Beck, he had examined the horn in question. Like many others, it was driven from the magneto, and the faster you went, the louder it sounded. The horn sounded, though it was inclined to be jumpy. To the Magistrate: He did not consider it a satisfactory warning, and he objected to that kind of horn. To the Senior Sergeant: He could not say whether the horn could have been heard at 100 yards away; they had only tested it a few chains away. William J. Steer, Manager of Greymouth Motors, Ltd, gave evidence that ho had inspected the horn. It certain, ly needed a slight adjustment, he said, but was otherwise in order.

To the Magistrate: At four miles an hour the horn would probably have been heard at about 60 yards away, but not more.

To the Senior Sergeant: If defendant had been running at high gear, it would hardly have been h n ard at all. but if at low gear it will be heard quite well. The Magistrate dismissed the charge, remarking that he did not think there had been any deliberate breach of the bv'e-law.

FAILURE TO GIVE WARNING. Herbert Leach was charged that, while driving a motor vehicle he did fail to give proper warning when .approaching an intersection. Sergeant Smythe gave evidence concerning a collision which had occurred' at the corner of Marlborough and High Streets, and which had resulted in the present charge against defendant. The lorry driven by defendant had been pushed about 2 feet 4 inches as the result of the impact. Witness had found that Robertson’s car, which collided with the lorry, had defective brakes. Defendant had said that he was doing 8 to 10 miles per hour, and that the l other man had said that he was going, to stop at the next house to deliver, bread. If Robertson had been on thel right side of the road there would not' have been a collision, added witness. ; To Mr Joyce: At the time of the accident witnes s had no complaint to 1 make against defendant. He was driving carefully and on his right side. 1 Constable Cogswell gave evidence] concerning a statement made by defendant, alleging that the collision was due to Robertson being on his wrong side. Mr Joyce contended that there was uo case to answer. Defendant had sounded his horn, and his brakc s were in order, and he was on his right sideDefendant stated that Robertson was almost 20 yards away when h (defend-

ant) was at the crossing. Judging by the way Robertson was going, defend ant reckoned lie was doing 30 miles' per hour. He had allowed Robertson about 15 feet. Robertson had not sounded his horn. Defendant estimated that Robertson was travelling at about 25 to 30 miles per hour by the extent of the damage to his (Robertson’s) radiator. Robertson was at least 20 yards from the intersection when h? saw him.

The Magistrate, in giving his decision so.ted that it wa s one of those qases where two motorists had met al an intersection. There wer* regulations providing for such cases. If a car approached on the right-hand cor. nor, it was the duty of the driver of Ihe other ear to avoid a collision and, if necessary, he must pull up. Robertson was on his right, but Leach did not pul' up, and he must, hold that he had committed a breach. Defendant would be fined £l, and costs 10s. Donald Robertson was fined £l. with 10 s costs, for driving with defective brakes. Defendant admitted that his hand brake was useless. CHARGE AGAINST COUNTY LORRY DRIVER. Gteorge (Jarlyle was ' charged with’ driving a lorry over the Paroa Railway crossing with inefficient brakes. This case had been adoujrned previously in order to hear further evidence. Defendant, who was represented by Mr Joyce, stated that the lorry driven by him was used for roadmaking purj poses, and not for any other purpose, so; far a s he was aware. To Senior Sergeant Roach: On the day in question they were going to fetch a pair of wheels for the lorry, and had men in the lorry to Help to lift the wheels. The wheels were not purchased at the time and they weremerely conveyed by the lorry for in-i sjieet ion. To Mr Joyce. Witness was told by) the foreman to get the Acheels. To Ihc Magistrate: They were bidden to carry passengers, though they often carried workmen. Mr Joyce stated that the Tost Office authorities allowed the County Council a £2 rebate on the lorry license. on ; the condition that it was used solely; for roadmaking purposes. Mr Joyce quoted various authorities in support of his contention that the men carried on the lorry should be considered as passengers.

The Senior Sergeant pointed out that the lorry had been used to carry wheels

for the construction of a lorry, while the license stipulated that the lorry was to be used solely for roadmaking.

The Magistrate contended that the carriage of the wheels was all part of roadmaking work as it was for the lorry used for that purpose. After hearing the evidence of witness, he thought that it was a case which came within exemption. The charge would be dismissed. COBDEN LICENSEE CONVICTED. Charles Chamley, licensee of the Cobden Hotel, was charged with keeping open his premises for the sale of liquor, exposing liquor for sale, and keeping open after hours. Defendant was represented by Mr Hannah. Constable Baird stated that, in company with Constable Hay, he had visit, cd the hotel. The front door was open. William Page was sitting in front of the bar slide, which was open. Defend-

ant was behind the bar talking to Page. When he saw witness the licensee whipped down the slide, and pulled away a glass containing beer. Page said he went to se l defendant for the purpose of discussing the purchase of the hotel least* and said he had been there five or six minutes. Chamley denied that there -had been a glass of beer on the

counter, and said he was in the bar doing his books. Page denied having any liquor. Defendant invited witness to inspect the bar, and he did so, but could not find the glass of beer. The licens e would, howveer. have had time to wash the glas s or to put it in his pocket. Constable Hay corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Defendant stated that he was in his office when Page came to sec h>m about buying the lease of a hotel. Defendant admitted that ho should not have been talking through the slide, and that when he saw Constable Baird Jr* had shut the slide down. Defendant denied that the police had questioned about To the Senior Sergeant: He had not heard th- u. ment ion anything about a glass. He had invited them to inspect the bar, and had said that there was no trading going on.

The Senior Sergeant: All that the police have said are lies, then? Defendant: Yes.

To the Magistrate; He had pulled the slide down on the spur of the moment. He knew that he should not have been talking through the slide. He had not been treated unfairly by the police. Constable Baird had visited the hotel three times that day. William Page stated that he had at one time a hotel in Westport. He and his brother-in-law were anxious to procure a hotel in Greymouth, and he went to the hotel after dinner on the Sunday to discuss the matter. He did not have a drink, and did not hear the police ask Chamley about drinks. To the Senior Sergeant. He would not say that the constables were lying, but there were no glasses there. Witness admitted that he had twice been previously convicted when a licensee at Westport, and also for being found after hours at the Cobden Hotel. He did not come to any terms, as Chamlev’s least* was too long. Witness ad-

mittcd that they had been discussing the matter for some months. To Air Hannan: He was making negotiations about tlm purchase of the hotel with Hannan and Seddon. To the Magistrate: He had very little opportunity of seeing Chamley except on a Sunday. He did not hear all that pass’d between the constable and the litoiiseo. He was at the bar side for three minutes or a little longer. The Magistrate declined to accept defendant’s story, and imposed a line of £,5. with 10s costs. Page was convicted and fined £l, with costs 10s, for being on licensed premises after hours,