COURT NEWS

Grey River Argus, 30 November 1938, Page 5

COURT NEWS

THEFT OF £387 Oamaru Council Employee [Per Press Association.] OAMARU, November 29. Robert Turnbull Hutchison Rae pleaded guilty at the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M. this afternoon, to receiving between May 2, 1936, and September 14, 1938, sums totalling £387 18s lid on terms requiring him to account for, or pay the money to the Oamaru Borough Council, and that, he fraudelently omitted to do so, thereby committing theft.- Rae was committed for sentence to the Supreme Court.

Claim for £2545

EIGHT YEAR-OLD BOY'S INJURY.

WELLINGTON, November 28.

■ Damages amounting to £2545 were claimed in the Supreme Court to-day, on behalf of a boy, aged 8, for injuiies received when he was knocked down by a motor-cycle in Newtown nearly two years ago. Before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), and a jury 'of 12, Gordon Albert Steel, suing through his father, Albert Edward Steel, claimed £45 special damages from Desmond Claire Williams, an upholsterer. Counsel said the boy suffered severe injuries to the right eye, the eyelid being torn away. The eye itself was uninjured. The gyelid had been grafted on again, and eventually, with the aid of a tendon-like substance from the leg, hitched to the muscle 'of the forehead. Altogether the boy had been to the operating theatre eight Or nine times. He had been operated on by an eminent New Zealand plastic surgeon, Dr H. I*. Pickerill, and though the surgeon had achieved something that a few years ago would probably have been undreamt of, the boy was' still suffering considerable disability. He could not raise the eyelid in the normal way. He had to make a conscious effort of raising the forehead in order to lift the upper eyelid. There was also a permanent disfigurement. The case will be continued to-mor-row.

MOTORISTS' RACE PLEA. PALMERSTON N., November 28. The rarely-used plea of autrefois acquit was heard in the Magistrate s Court when John James Francis Levens was charged with having attempted to drive a car over a railway crossing at a time when the line was not clear. Mr. G. I. McGregor, who appeared for the defendant, told Mr. H. P. Lawry, S.M., that the accused had been acquitted in the Supreme Court on a charge of negligent driving, causing bodily harm. Now he was charged under Section 9 of the Government Railways Act with attempting to cross a line when a train was approaching. • The two charges had arisen out of the same set of circumstances. . The Magistrate said that the Supreme Court would not have punished the defendant for the offence with which he was now charged. Here, there would be an offence whether there was bodily injury or not or whether or not the car was hit by the train.

Mr. McGregor submitted that the defendant could not be charged with a breach of a statutory duty that had been the basis of the negligence claim in the Supreme Court. “It looks as if evidence which would be sufficient to justify a conviction in the present charge would not be sufficient to justify a conviction in the Supreme Court,” said the Magistrate. ‘.'However, as Mr. McGregor has raised the issue. I won’t decide it now.” Decision was reserved.

Before hearing the case, the Magistrate had before him a charge concerning another railway crossing accident that had been the subject of Supreme Court proceedings. T. S. R. Taylor, represented by Mr. McGregor; pleaded guilty, to having attempted to drive a car across a level crossing when the line was not clear.

Inspector Cummings told the Court that defendant’s car had been struck by a train, causing the death of two passengers. The defendant had been tried in the, Supreme Court on a charge of negligent driving causing death, and had been acquitted. ’After stating that the defendant had had much worry and expense as a result of the accident, as well as injuries, Mr. McGregor suggested that where the driver of a car had already been charged with an offence It was necessary that he be brought before the Court for a statutory offence. Apparently the Railway Department had instructed the police to take action. Counsel suggested that one prosecution was sufficient in such cases, and he asked that the defendant be convicted and discharged.

''Cases of this sort are not common in New Zealand, although I have had them before,” said Mr. Lawry. “There was a case in Christchurch last week when the Magistrate took the view that the law did not give immunity from further prosecution.” Mr. Lawry convicted the defendant and ordered him to pay costs. HASTINGS, November 29.

Describing <he circumstances, as among the worst that have been brought to his notice, Mr Miller, S.M. imposed a fine of £2O on James Osler, of Wairo.a, and cancelled his 1 driver’s license for 12 months, at the Hastings Court this morning, when Osler was charged with negligent driving of a car in Omahu Road, Hastings. The facts of the case revealed that Osler failed to stop the car after it had collided with another vehicle, and though originally the police laid h second charge on this account, it was withdrawn this morning. Defendant- did not appear. A plea of guilty to the charge of negligent driving was entered. Police evidence showed that defendant was located about an hour and a half after the collision. He was then showing signs of being under the influence of liquor.

HOOp Compensation WIDOW'S CLAIM FAILS. GISBORNE, November 29. 'Judgment was delivered by Mr Justice O’Regan in the Arbitration Court

to-day, in a claim made by Nora Teresa Corkery, widow of Thomas Corkery, a waterside worker, for £l,OOO compensation for the death of her husband, alleged to be due to the nature of his work, while in the employ of the Gisborne Lightering and Stevedoring Company, Limited. The Court dismissed the claim, on the ground that the medical evidence conclusively proved that death had been due to coronary thrombosis, which was not caused by physical effort.