ELTHAM COURT

Hawera Star, Volume L, 25 February 1931, Page 6

ELTHAM COURT

MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES. YESTERDAY’S SITTING. Mr R. W. Tate, S.M., dealt with a number of alleged breaches of the motoring regulations and of the licensing laws' at the Eltham Magistrate’s Court yesterday. A young man from Palmerston North "named George Smith was at the last sitting of the court fined on a charge of dangerous driving, and yesterday appeared to show cause why his license should not be cancelled. Defendant in a letter to the court said he was. a young working hoy, jogging along on his own. He added that a cancellation would injure him in the prosecution of his job and mean his losing it. He apologised for tho trouble caused by him. Mr J. L. Weir, for the Borough Council, said they felt defendant had learnt his lesson and they would not press for a heavy penalty. His Worship said he would take into consideration the fact that defendant would lose his job, but he added that he should Grave thought of this earlier. It was, he said, necessary to see that the regulations were obeyed and that the time was coming when such cases would have to be met by suspension of license. In this case he would, under the circumstances, not order the cancellation. FAILURE TO GIVE WAY. John Gower was charged that, at Eltham on January 17, being the driver of <i motor lorry and when approaching an intersection not controlled by a ix)lice officer or inspector, lie did fail to give way to traffic on the right and allow it to pass m iront of him. , , „ . The regulations state that tins must he done when there is a possibility ol a collision if both vehicles should continue on their course. Sergeant J. Henry said the charge was laid under the motor regulations and he detailed the circumstances under which the accident happened, in which a motor cyclist collided with a lorry and was taken to hospital. Daniel WetGierall, the cyclist, saic: he had come from the county office and remembered but little of the accident, finding himself after the eras! in the hospital. “He was riding a motor cycle anci woke up in hospital,” said His WorCbnstable Townsend gave evidence as to being called to the scene anc finding the man badly injured oil the road. He gave details of measurements lie had taken. To Mr Stewart: The cycle hit the lorry about midway on the right-hanc side, Bft 7in from the back. Mr A. A. Stewart, who appeared fo: defendant, said that this was a dharge of not giving way to traffic on the right and not of contributory negli gence. It was agreed the defendan came out slowly and carefully and h< swore he looked both ways and saw n< sign of the motor cycle, the first la knew of it being when Evans, win was with him, said, “Look out, here’s a bike,” and then he pulled up. Hi maintained that the motor cycle mus have come with considerable speed h get where it did in a very short time Also it had, as would be. proved, eigh feet of space to clear the lorry bu charged right- into it, either not look ing out for it or actually looking awa; for the second. There would seem n reasonable possibility for the collisi-oi on the part of the cyclist. Defendant said he had driven : lorry for several years. On the da; in question he came out at from fiv to 10 miles per hour, looked out am seeing no one began to cross and turn Just them, practically at the moment the cycle struck the lorry. In reply to Sergeant Henry lie ai firmed that lie looked to the righ when 10 yards from the crossing. Jihad -one bad eye but it had no effec on his vision. To the magistrate: Something ma have been hidden behind a benzin lorry which was standing near Wilkin son's store if close behind it. Charles Evans, who was wit Gower, confirmed the looking out, bu could not say how fast the cycle wa going. He said Gower sounded hi horn but he heard no other. In reply to Sergeant Henry, he sai lie did not know why he did not se the cycle. Mr Stewart, for the defendant, sai it was obvious the riolice evidence wa weak and it was admitted defendan came out slowly and carefully, blowin (his horn, and looking both ways an j doing everything the regulations an I-commousense demanded. There was ihe said, no regulation to give way t non-apparent traffic and he submitte tire cyclist must have come very fas or Iliad had his attention distrncteand was not looking out for traffic Gower took reasonable precautions am it was unfortunate the collision oc curred. His Worship said that a man afte looking both ways when coming ou on to a road should take care in easof non-existent traffic. The only pos sibility suggested to him was that tin cyclist had covered a long distance b; his great speed between the time o defendant’s looking anti down tin road, when he saw nothing, and wliei the collision -occurred. He considerec l the building and the other lorry migli obscure the view. Observance of tin right-hand regulation should be in sisted on everywhere, hut a breach o this reouired real proof. He would give defendant the benefit of tin doubt and dismiss the case. BEEIR. SUPPLIED FOR PARTY Harokl Ludwig Kaspar, licensee othe Eltham Hotel, was charged that oi February 8, during the time at wliicj hotels -should! be- closed, he did sel liquor to Stewart Atkinson Tip-lady. A similar charge was brought for supply jug to Victor Gland Anderson. He was also charged with opening his premises for the isale of liquor at a time when they should have been closed. Sergeant. Henry, who prosecuted, saic the charges of opening for sale were withdrawn. He detailed the circumstances- surrounding «• gathering ol young men for a send-off to a. friend who was leaving Eltham. They nipparent.ly had forgotten, the liquor and decided to ask Kaspar if he would let them hjave, 'this, and lie agreed to sapply throe- gallons of beer. It wascarried to a house one and a-linlf miles from, the town, and) then consumed, two more gallons being procured from Kaspar. The party went on till the early morning.' The only redeeming feature was the admission of the offences by Kaspar, and his appearance at court. He had been a. license for several years and no previous complaints had been made. He was generally known as a good publican. Mr Stewart, who appeared for defendant, said this was the -first case against him, and) was an act rather ■of folly and good nature. His record was good, and in view of the fact that

3 t - it was not a serious case and m vl e\v > ailso. of Itlie (business depression, he asked) His Worship to deal as leniently t as possible with the case, t His Worship said that the reason - for dealing leniently was defendant« v frankness in the matter and the gooc a record he had enjoyed m the past i rf the case was as submitted the hnc should be low. Ho inflicted a fine 0.1 i 20s ou the first offence and 40s oi r the second, with] costs 20s. t LIQUOR PROCURED ILLEGALLY. Percy William Janies Todd was call ’ ed on to answer a- charge of procuring liquor ou February 2 for Charles Eld " wa rd Trott, knowing him to be- tin t subject- of a. prohibition order. 0 Edward William Todd, charged «im L ilarlv, admitted supplying, but doniec that lie knew Trott was prohibited. ' Charles Edward Trott, on the charge e of procuring liquor during the currency of the order, pleaded not guilty. ■ Constable Townsend said that in reply 3 to- a telephone call on February 3, h< 1 vent to Te Roti and took a- statement iS from P. W. Todd, wli-Q said he weni s to Hawera. and! met- liis father and they . took beer to Trott’s place on the Hun ter Road. There one bottle was con e sunied. -His father stayed at Trott’s Hie constable went to Trott’s and tolc “ him a complaint had been received Q ® ;he dr inking by the Todds and him sel: * on the previous evening. Trott saic S they had only; five bottles and adder * that lie had not asked! Todds to bring Ll the liquor, and did not know the taxi- > man who brought it. 2 Witness said that Todd, senr., ad- " initted taking beer in -a sugar bag tc t Troth's, a-ncl staying (there for tea. The beer was then finished. Trott had * been a resident of Hunter Road foi 1 some years, and the Todds would have ' had chances of knowing Trott was prohibited. Tocldi, junr., had stated that J' lie knew this. k Todcl, senr., said ho had been ill and 3 had not seen Trott for is.ome months. ' Therefore, he had no reasonable oppor--3 tunity of knowing of the prohibition 7 against Trott-. ‘ Trott said he had no idea the Todds 3 were coming to- his place and was sur--1 nrised when they arrived. He had a J drink but -was not a drunkard. The prohibition order bad been forced on 3 him by outsiders. ’ Addressing Todd, senr., Hisi Worship said that lie was the kind of person 1 who made it difficult for people under 3 prohibition to help themselves. The mere statement that he did not know Trott was prohibited! was not- sufficient. “This sort of thing has to be stopped,’’ f he added. j Todd, senior and junior, were each t convicted and fined £lO and costs 10s. j Trott was convicted and discharged on payment of costs 10s. The reason " no fine was inflicted, said His Worship, was that he considered! lie was tempt- _ ed. If, however, lie drank again lie ’ would be fined. ! CIVIL OASES. ‘ Judgment by default -was entered! in ; the following c-ivil cases : Kapongn. Town Board v. .Edward Taylor, 10s; I. J. Bi-iclger v. F. Walker, £9; Phil ■ Harding a - . E. S. .EGvines, £75 70s ■ John Sheohy a - . Okas. Carr. £6 17s; W. G. Crosier v. Ernest Avery, £4 70s; Taranaki Power Boa.rdi a - . Edgar Loveridge, £3 7s Od ; 771. J. Pepperell v. T Bennett, £2O Bs.