Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

YESTERDAY’S SITTING. The weekly sitting of the Greymouth Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday Mr W. M’eldrum, S.M., presiding, when Hie following cases were dealt with:— UNEMPLOYMENT LEVIES UNPAID. James Thomas Mclnroje was charged with failing to pay his unemployment levies for periods elided December 1, 1930, March 1. 1931, Jun e 1, 1931, August 1, 1931, and November 1 1931. Mr F. J. Davies Inspector of Factories, prosecuted and obtained permission to withdraw the charge relating to December 1, 1930. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Davies stated that defendant had bee n informed in October last that if he wished to claim exemption he should i write to the Unemployment Commissioner. As this was not done he reeeivied instructions fo take proceedings. Air Davies produced a signed statement by defendant admitting that, the levies had not been paid. Defendant stated he was n ot able to pay as he was out of work. H-> admitted that- he did n°t send in the form "f application for exemption and said he had forgotten it. Defendant was convicted and ordered to pa v 10s costs on each of the four charges. DANGEROUS DRIVING. ACCUSED CONVICTED. V.'Tliam Burnett, jnr., of was charged that, on December 25, at Dobson, lie drove a motor-car al a speed and in a manner which having regard to all the circumstances of the case, might have been dangerous to the public. The information was laid by Traffic Inspector A. J. Sloss, who was represented by Mr T. F. Brosnan. Air I. Patterson, of Reefton, appeared for d.‘fondant, who pleaded not guilty. On ( hi - application of Al >• Patterson ail witnesses were ordered out of the Cou rt. Air Brosnan stated that the informali")i was laid under Section 28 of the Aloior Vehic es Act and resulted from a uolbsion which took place betwe*-n ■wo cars on a small bridge near Dobson at about 1.45 a.in., on Christinas Air Patte’son stated that there was an objection to the information in that it disclosed two offences instead of one, on? an offence of speed and an- I (lher of negligent driving. Ho asked that the prosecution elect which charge they proposed to take and have the < i;. ‘cessary amendnrent made. Mr Brosnan submitted that there was l ut one charge made but he would not object to having the question of speed struck out. The Magistrate made the amendment as suggested, striking out the question ,

of speed. Mr Brosnan, continuing his case, staged that one of the cars was driven by Mr R. Howarth, of Blackball, and was proceeding to Greymouth, having just passed through Dobson. The other car, driven by tin* defendant was going towards Dobson from Greymouth and th accident took place on a small bridge some distance on the Greymoulh side of Dobson. The cars met hub to hub and Howarth’s car was pulled up dead by the application of the brakes and by thc force of the impact. His car was almost touching the left-hand railing of the bridge, hi s correct, side. It was alleged that Howarth’s car was on the bridge before the other. Defendant’s ear struck the hub and grazed the riming board. The spokes of the

wheel of defendant’s car fell out and the wheel collapsed, the enj of the axle making a groove o n the road seven feet long and four inches deep. Defendant’s car finally overturned 47 feet from the bridge. Both cars were damaged. The right front wheel of Howarth’s car was turned right round. This was important as it would be that Howarth’s car after it received this damage could not be moved without the assistance of a break-down lorry. The bridge was 15 feet 6 inches wide and each car was 5 feet 9 inches i n width. The railings of the bridge were painted white and it was alleged that there was ample room for two cars, carefully driven, to pass on the bridge. Shortly after the accident, a bus arrived on the scene from Blackball and could not pass the defiendant ’s car until it was moved. The Traffic Inspector arrived later and took the measurements on the plan (handed into Court).

Evidence for the prosecution was given by Rtennie Howarth (driver of the car). Jack Williams of Blackball (driver of a car which arrived on the scone after the accident and which passed Howarth’s car, which was still on. tire bridge with ease), and Inspector Sloss.

Mr Patterson stated that he would call the defendant and two witnesses to show that the speed of defendant’s car was not unusual, that the accident took place on the approach to the Dobson end of the bridge and that the collision was due to negligent driving on the part of Howarth.

Evidence for the defence was given by the defendant, Burnett, Gordon Bierworth and Iris Park (passengers in defendant’s car).

The Magistrate said the present case was not one in which one person was claiming against the other the information was laid against, the defendant for driving his car i n such a manner, as, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, might, have been dangerous to the public. Th c evidence was conflicting, but it did not necessarily follow that each of the witnesses was deliberately saying what he knew to be false. The conflict of evidence might result from the witnesses viewing the circumstances from a different point of view. The evidence for the prosecution was practically that Howarth, who was driving to Greymouth, approached the bridge near the Power Station at the same time as a car driven by Burnett and proceeding from Greymouth to Blackball. It was a rule that where a bridge was too small for two cars to pass on it abreast both should pull up to allow of one giving the right of way to the other, but

even if the bridge were wide enough for the two cars, they should both ease down so that each could pass the other without any danger. Th? qnus was on both to pull up. He thought that the evidence given by Howartn vas the more, likely to be true as compared with that of th? defendant Howarth’s car was resting on the bridge with the rear left wheel six inches from the railing and the front left wheel one foot from the rail the front wheels being turned out. He considered that there- could be no doubt that the other car approached the bridge at too great a speed. Even Burnett agreed that he accelerated when he came on to the bridge. Burnett stated that the impact took place when he got over the bridge, but he (the Magistrate) was quite satisfied that the cars collided on the bridge. A fact to show that the speed of defendant’s car at the time was fast, was that as the car jumped forward after striking Howarth’s, the force of the jump broke the wheel and the end of the axle made a groove in the road four inches deep. The car then went another forty-seve n feet and turned over. It must certainly have been going at considerable speed and the defendant must be held to be guilty. The Act prescribed a fine not exceeding £lOO, or imprisonment for three months, but in inflicting the fine, he would take into consideration the fact that the defendant’s car was badly damaged, and also that he suffered personal injuries. He would be convicted and fined £5 with 18s Court costs £2 2s solicitor’s fee, and witnesses’ expenses £1 15s.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GRA19320315.2.9

Bibliographic details

Grey River Argus, 15 March 1932, Page 3

Word Count
1,267

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Grey River Argus, 15 March 1932, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Grey River Argus, 15 March 1932, Page 3