MAGISTERIAL.

Mataura Ensign, 19 July 1906, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

o on k. THIS DA A'. (Refore Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M.) CIVIL CASKS. •Judgment was given by default- in, the case James Heid and Son (Mr' Smith) v. \V. Mcikle for 13s ami ."is costs. •I. W. Kelly (Mr Inder) v. .losopli -Mason, judgment summons for Cs 3s. There was no appearance of defendant. and an order was made for payment on August 1!», in default L'l days' imprisonment, the warrant to be susp« ncle<l on payment of £2 a month. •I. Anderson (Mr Smith) v. S. Leurmont, judgment summons for .£ll. (JrJer made for payment of amount by instalments of t"l per month, beginning on Auoiist lit. in is days iniprisunmenl. W. (.'. Kobertsoii {Mr Howler) v. A. Athli-ld (Mr Smith), judgment summons for C~ lis Id. Defendant was examined as to his means, and his Worship declined to make an order. ■lames l.awson (Mr Henderson) v. Anthony h'ord (Mr Inder), claim CI Ills. This was an application by defendant for a new hearing.—New hearing granted, costs H!s lid' tu plaintiffs solicitor. I'.OUOI'GH P.Y-LAWS.

I'olicc v. Thomas Kurjioss, charge of ritlinir a bicycle on a footpath in Goto. Defendant dul not appear and was ordered to pay costs of service of siiniiuons, ss. TItACTJON-KN'GI.NE CASK. Southland C'niiniv Council (.Mr Poppeluelli v. Jiobt. Halloch (llr Ind.-r|, chui-L'e ot iisiny- yrippers on a traction eiiL'ine on a County road and doinir damage t" the load.

Mr Poppelwcll said lie had been sorVeil with a notice to produce various .locum, ills. Tic had only received the notice yesterday and had hud no time in tret thorn. Cutler section 3t.lf> of the Counties Act a sealed copy of the bylaw \va< evidence, and he would produce that. The informant was one Thomas Donley, and the defence could j;ivo secondary evidence of tin- doeuni -nts he desired to be produced. Mr Indei- said he might have to ash for an adjournment and apply t" the Supreme Court for a subpoena duces tecum. lie asked if this was a private pi-osccutkm. .Mr I'oppolwell declined U, say. lb-«>|H-i'.etl his case by (piotino- the by-law under which the information was laid, and narrated the circumstances of the Thomas Green, member of the Southland County Council for (lie llo- ! komti ridiiifr, produced a certified oxi tract from the County minutes authnrisii]./ hins to prosecute. To Mr hitler: The Council hail (wo eneinos which travelled all over the Coiinlv.

}fr I'oppelwoll put in a sealed copy of the by-laws, and iu;ain i|Uoled section .'!i:f> of the Counties Ac(.

'l'homas Dooh-v. County siiriacemnii. deposed that on May S he saw defendant drivim,' a traction eiiLnne on the road referi-ed to. The road had been formed but w a s bad and soft, and defendant was hauliny- a llireshine- mill and hut with winding year. lie hail eioht yripp-ers on each of tic- two front wheels. Witness saw- him drivins; the eiieine on the load, and the damam: to the road could be seen yet. ! There was CI worth of damao-e done |on the formed road. In one place dej fondant used the" windintf troar for six ! chains.

To Mr In.W : I!,- t; ( ,i a 1.-U.-r from j -Mr Creen to come to (lon.-. He did so iiml laid llif information with Mr r<i|>|i.-!\v,.11. The Comity had two on•iines which i-ui-riitl ..rippers wit it them. Imi lie had never seen the ecip-p.-rs used on them. Defendant was ••w incline;"" v. lien witness first saw him on Coily's road, with all his mill hand--. There was no uravel u n this road, lint there was some formation. lie (lid not tell any man to put the irrippers on any enirine at any time. j Win. r'leinii-.e. w|„, was in Ballorh's employment on the dale in ipiestion, said he Knew Hie road referred to. Defendant used e;rippers on his engine that day on part of the road that was formed Inn not "ravelled. The engine would do more damage without the •trippers. To Mr I rider: Tii ily piece of fornmtion was about a chain in a hollow. More damaLte would have been done to the road without the erippcrs. and owner*preferred hot to use them. In a year like this, one could not <rct uli-.'utr those roads without "rippers. This closed tile case for the prosecu- ! lion. i ' Mr Jnder asked for the production oi It he receipt. Ily tile < ioVelllof of a copy l ..I I Ik- l.y laws as rei|iiired T»y the Aei. [ilis l'u-L point was that thu pi'ovi

sion had not been complied with. He •quoted the reoent cuse, Hamlyn v. Fcrrior. He also asked for the production of the notice required by another section of the by-law- us to heavy traffic.

Mr Poppclwell said he could not do so : he had not received the notice to produce in time,

[ Mr Inder suggested he should go on with hisj defence without prejudice to his right to an adjournment. He referred to Adams v. Basliam (Gazette L.'R. 540). He nsked for the production of the advertisement of the bylaws (vide Hanlon v. the Polnmgimi County Council : Banks v. Drysdale, 10 X./,.L.U. €7 : King v. Hargreaves 12 X.Z.L.R. 28-1). The County was dependent on the farming community, who could not get their crops threshed; unless grippcrs were used on the engines, and the engines did less injury to the roads without than with grippcrs. Grippcrs were a necessity and the by-law was bad.

At this stage the Court adjourned until .'{ p.m.