TO-DAY'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXI, Issue LXXI, 22 February 1916, Page 7

TO-DAY'S COURT.

(Before Mr W. R. Haselden, S.M.)

BY-LAW PROSECUTIONS

A. F. bymes pleaded not guilty to an information cuargmg him witn navmg coffljniiiea a- breaca ot the ±iawera lio.ougu by-laws an Jjeoraary d by driving a motor car around, the corner on tfne wrong side of the street. JL'v Ticieii.oe was .given by Constable Nuttall to the ehect. that, at about 5.JL6 on the day in question—race day —witness in company with the borough inspector and acting-Inspector Pettett, was regulating the iraihc when the defendant drove along Princes street from the direction or the railway station, and when entering near the intersection of Princes and High streets, witness signalled to the defendant to pass around tne corner on his correct side, but he took the wrong side. The defendant, in the course of a long personal explanation, said he was not aware of the by-laws, as he was practically a stranger to the town. He understood the signal of the constable to mean to.pass on to Princes street, but he informed the officer that he had business to do in High street. The constable was standing in the centre of the road obstructing the thoroughrare, and he (defendant) took, what appeared to him, to be the only clear course available. The Magistrate pointed out to the defendant that it was ridiculous tor him to suggest that the constable was obstructing the traffic, and told him how the traffic in the city was regulated by policemen- standing in thecentre of xhe streets. A fine of 5s was imposed, with costs totalling 15s. The defendant was further charged •with having refused to stop his car when requested to do so .by a. constable, to which he pleaded not guilty. Constable Nuttall stated in evidence that when he signalled the defendant to stop he took no notice of the signal. The acting-inspector and witness had to step out of the way of the car, as tfhey might have been knocked ;'over.

The defendant: How did you signal me to stop?—l put up my left hand, ' and stood facing straight towards you. i Evidence was also given by Inspector A. Philip and acting-Inspector Pettetfi The defendant gave evidence ihafhe, did not see the police signal him to :stop, 'hut he did notice the signal as: if to go forward. The defendant called two witnesses., who said that they, did not see the sig-; nal to stop. i A fine of 10s, with costs 7s, was im-i nosed, the Magistrate stating that tie by-laws must be obeyed. ; DISOBEDIENCE OF MAINTENANCE ORDERS. John Carroll pleaded guilty to noi having complied with a maintenance order with respect to his wife, the .arrears being £1 10s. Mr P. ODea appeared for the complainant. The Magistrate adjourned the case until next morning, at ten o'clock, by which time the money would have to be, paid. Defendant explained that the reason he had not paid the money was because the complainant had not handed him his personal effects. There was another information against the defendant with respect to his four children, the arrears being £3. Asked by the Magistrate as to why, this money had not been paid, the defendant gave fhe same reply. '■■ The Magistrate, however, would not accept the excuse, and imposed a sen-: tence of seven days' imprisonment, and • added_ that the defendant was to be l kept in custody until the money wasi paid. ' The arrears were subsequently paid, i and the defendant was released. | DEBT CASES. j Judgment was entered for plaintiffs,! with costs, in the following undefended S oases: Hurrel Bros. v. S. Hauora, £6 19s 63; H. Edgar v. A. E. Stroud, 18s; ; W. A. Parkinson and Co., Ltd. v. S. Hauora, £3 16s 6d: C. J. Le Campion v. Turi Ngeru, £4. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Sam Hauora, who did not appear, was ordered to pay H. D. Taylor £2 14s 6(3.within 14 days; in default two days' imprisonment. Mr J. Bayley, of Mr P. O'Dea's office, appeared "for the judgment -creditor. A DEFENDED CLAIM, In the defended case, T. W. New v. H. Gorton, jun. (Mr Spratt), claim £37 7s 6d, after "hearing the evidence of both parties, the Magistrate save judgment for the plaintiff for £36. There was another defended case, but it was settletl between the counsel engaged, and judgment entered up accordingly.