HASTINGS MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume IX, Issue 81, 20 March 1919, Page 5

HASTINGS MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Belme Mi R M Dyei. SM ) THIS DAY. THE I?I LE OF JUL ROAD Monte Amun. <>i Olntc (Mi E. .J. W I Lillet t), sued (H. Guinbley, of fernhill (Mr. D. ScuiHiell), for £4B 11,-, a claim ioi damages, lepaiis to plaintiff's motor cur, which was inpiKsl as tins result of the alleged negligence of d‘* ieiidam. in dining his cai on the Hast ings-Fernlrill road, on October 2nd, 1918. There was a counter-claini lor £55. which was reduced to £lB 14.4 Alter hearing the witnesses, his Wot ship renewed the evidence, sipng that. as was usual in such cases, there was a dnect conllict ol testimony. A wliims in the native's car said they vue on their proper side mid that, uh the otne car approached, the driver Kept luithur and Imlhor in that dire< .on until, at last, he had, either to .uti >uio tho telegraph polo or into det'* ulant's car, because defendant absolutely jambed bun. If that was so no man could do more. Tlie evidence ol Mrs. Walkei, who was in dclei.riant’s cur. was that delemlant was on the wrong side. On the other hand, defendant and bis wife said they were on their proper aide and continued so. 1 In bin (His Worship’s) opinion, Mr. I’owdrell’s evidence settled th.* case. Mr. I’owdreil picked up two grease caps, one belonging to each ear, eighteen inches apart, on detendant's side oi the road, and. it seemed to him, th" collision mi Hi red neat to where th" caps were found. Il was contended that tlie caps might have been moved by the t i.iliie, but the caps weie heavy and could not have been moved lai. There would not be much tratlic during the night, and the caps were found hi tho early morning. He thought, therefore, that Gumbley was on his proper side, 11 a diner was going along on his proper side oi the road, and it an other driver was appicaching him on his wrong side, the former would be justified in assuming that the other man would pull tin to his lei i side and do the right thing. Gumbley was to the left of the centre of the road and, if so, there was plenty ot mom 10l tho other to pass. I’lwiuldf would be non soiled on’ Ihe claim, and judgment would be given for defendant on the counter-claim, £lB 14/4, and costs. £6 1,6. HAMILTON v E. 11. DODGE.

Gominill liaimlton (Mr. E. .1. W. Hallett) sued E. R. Dodge, couchbutlder (Mr. 1). Sesinnell) tor the possession oi a gig. alleged to have been 101 l witli deleiida.lit, lor lepails on March 21, 1917, and not iidurnecl, or its value £2l). A counter claim for £7 11 - was admitted.' Aller hearing evidence, his Worship said that defendant did not discharge tho onus upon him to deliver the gig on proper authority. Even if Hamilton had avlmiited he did tell some one I<> cad m next day, yet a Maoit and a pakeha. whom deiemhint did not know and whom ho would not know if be saw them again, came in and look delivcty of the gig, without written authority, and no receipt was taken from them by defendant. There was only the factor* oi dolav m plaintifl claiming hi.s gig left, but defendant was admittedly away for :l long time, and Maoris were generallv taihon. the merits of tho Tase dei’cudant did mH discharge the onus that was upon him. Judgment would ho given on the i lain) for £L. and costs £ I fl)'-, and mi the countei - claim, with costs £1 4 -.