MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 25 February 1926, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

SITTING AT HAWERA. POLICE CASES DEALT WITH. The Magistrate’s Court sat at Hawera 1 to-day, when police cases were dealt with by Mr J. S. Barton, S.M. UNREGISTERED DOGS. The borough inspector (Mr L. Hunt) proceeded against F. W. Pettett .for failing to register a dog. In evidence it- was stated that the animal had. hot been registered this year,. or last year. A fin® of £1 and 7s court costs was imposed, defendant also being directed to. pay the registration fees, amounting to £l. ; »S Robert Lowe was similarly charged) the circumstances of the . case being identical with that of Pettett’s. The same penalty was inflicted. ■ The * inspector stated that all dogs must be registered by January 14 of each year, and the onus was on the owner of the animal. MOTORISTS CHARGED.

Robt, Mitchell, an apprentice youth, was charged (1) with negligently riding a motor-cycle, (2) with failing to stop when requested by a Constable, and (3) with riding without a silencer. Constable Lemm, in. evidence, stated that the defendant. rode over, the Princes Street-Furlong Street intersection at 30 miles 'ah hour.

The magistrate characterised the case as that of an irresponsible youth with a motor-cycle, and he referred to the two glaring cases lie had. had to •deal with recently at WanganuiHe would take the point of view of .the oublic that required protection. \A' fine of £3 and 7s Court costs was imposed on the first charge. Treating • the second charge as a means of giving public warning, he would inflict a fine of 5s and 7s court costs. The third charge would be treated; similarly,, and. - a fine of 10s and 7s court costs would imposed. "... .. . John P. Alaxwell, who drove a (motorcar without a driver’s license, was fined £1 and 7s court costs. Defendant said he had a license issued by the Wellington City Council in 1922, and he thought that the matter of holding a license was simply one of competence to drive. He was ignorant of the provisions of the new Act, and ventured the opinion that it was- just in its ,in- v fancy. The magistrate remarked that the Act was now “a fairly lusty infant.”

James AV. Craig, who drove a car without a rear light on I>ecemher, 12, was fined 12s 6d and 7s costs. RAILWAY CROSSING OFFENCES.

George Travis was charged, (1) with, attempting to cross the railway ‘ line ; when such wasi not clear; (2) with failing to stop when approaching a. railway line; and (3) with failing to keep a vigiient look-out. Air. H. B. Gibson, for tbe Railway Department, said that Travis was approaching the Tawhiti crossing at Hawera and, observing that the signal was down, came on slowly. He collided With a train that was shunting, but no'great damage was done. • .. . Air. O'Dtea, for defendant, said it seemed to him that the Railway Department could be negligent if it liked, and, if an accident occurred, the other party. was to blame. He referred to the “ridiculous” provisions as mentioned in the charges. Every motor driver committed the breaches mentioned. In the case under review there was no blame attachable to Travis. The signal show-, ed the line as clear and he came _on slowly. There was no man flagging the train, or if there were, he was not showing himself. The magistrate pointed out that the signal was for railwaymen; and not for motorists to interpret. As Mr: O’Dea said, every motorist broke the rules pro-' vided, but the defendant only brought. charges in cases that called for action. The plain facts of the case were tbat ; : the motorist took one precaution and then thought that that absolved him from everything else. However, he got into collision with a shunting engine. He did not agree that the Railway Depa rtment’ cob Id be as negligent as it liked. He pointed out that the railway engine was confined to a steeL track and had heavy trucks behind it, whereas the motorist could choose his own way. However," the ease was not', a bad one, but just another- of those inexplicable ones. . . _•• Oil the charge of failing to keep a vigiient look-out. which was taken first, defendant was fined £2 and court costs, with £3 3s Crown On the other two counts, defendant' was convicted and discharged. ' \

(Proceeding)