MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 2, 2 December 1931, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CIVIL BUSINESS. Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., presided over the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when civil business was dealt with. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following cases: —AlfaLaval Separator Coy., Ltd. (Mr Cooper) v. C. A. Allerby, £8 Is Id, costs £2 12s 6d, L. W. Holland (Mr Cooper) v. K. Howard, £l6 18s 6d, costs £3; Jacobs and Grant (Mr Grant) v. H. T. Currie, 10s, costs 16s; Midland Brewery Coy., Ltd. (Mr Ongley) v. J. Stewart, £5 10s 9d, costs £1 17s 6d; S. Brown (Mr Gordon) v. F. Robinson, £2 10s, costs £1 6s 6d; Holben, Hubbard and Coy., Ltd. (Mr; Cooper) v. W. Doyle, £4 2s 3d, costs £1 3s 6d; C. E. Dempsy, as liquidator for Allamands, Ltd. (Mr Gordon) v. H. R. Varnham. costs only, £2 3s; H. It. Jensen (Mr Sinclair) v. P. Mitchell, £l3 18s, costs £2 15s; same v. J. Hoskins, £6 10s lOd, costs £1 10s 6d; H. L. Young, Ltd. (Mr Grant) v. 0. O’Brien, £3 15s Id, costs £1 3s 6d; same v. R. B. Hill, £2 16s 4d, costs til 3s 6d; Ford Motors Manawatu, Ltd. (Mr Grant) v. C. Allen, £2 11s 2d, costs £1 3s 6d; E. Kennedy (Mr Meatyard) v. W. N. Tweeddale, £3 15s, costs £1 3s 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. J. Cane was ordered to pay S. R. Waugh (Mr Eitzherbert) the sum of £ls 11s, forthwith, in default 14 days’ imprisonment, warrant to be suspended so long as defendant pays £2 on .January 5, 1932, and £2 per month thereafter. REMAND GRANTED. Thomas John Lueinsky. aged 23, was charged that on November 30, at Palmerston North, he had been deemed to bo an idle and disorderly person in that be had insufficient lawful visible means of support. Accused pleaded not guilty, and on the application of Senior-Detective Quirke a remand till Monday next was granted to enable tlie police to institute further enquiries. DAMAGE TO CAR. Mary Salmon, of Palmerston North, proceeded against R. de Cleene, of Jickell Street, A. de Cleene, and Annie Amelia do Cleene. also of the same place, claiming £lO as general damages and £8 15s 6d costs of repairs to a car. Plaintiff alleged that defendant, A. de Cleene, when driving a lorry, the property of R. de Cleene, had collided with a stationary car in Cuba Street, the property of plaintiff. Mr Oram appeared for plaintiff and Mr Ongley lor defendant. C. T. Salmon, surveyor, of Palmerston' North, stated in evidence that the car was the property of his wife, Out on the date in question he had driven it to town and had parked it in Cuba Street. He had not witnessed the accident, but on being acquainted of the mishap he had gone to inspect tho car which had suffered considerably as the result of the collision. The repairs which had to be carried out had entailed an outlay of £8 15s 6d, but apart from that the car had depreciated considerably. D. \V. Thompson, representative for .lie North Island Motor Union, stated chat lie had witnessed the accident. He had spoken to A. de Cleene. the driver, who had informed witness that he bad heard a whistle and had looked round with the result that he had crashed into the car before being aware that it was there.

R. D. Peterson, insurance agent, gave evidence as to having interviewed defendants. " A. de Cleene had stated -hat he had gone into town for coke for his mother anil that both lie and bis brother worked on tlie farm for their mother when not otherwise engaged. Robert de Cleene stated that lie was the owner of the lorry which had been involved in the accident. It had had defective steering gear and when tbyee parts over the lock the wheels were apt to turn in tire opposition direction. The defect had been attended to the morning following the accident. On the date in question his brother had taken tlie lorry without authority.

Annie Amelia de Cleene, mother ol tlie other two defendants, stated that the younger son Alfred had returned from tire South Island that day. When she had suggested that lie should take one of the cycles instead of the lorry lie had considered it too windy to cycle. She had then asked him to bring back a hag of coke. Alfred Thomas de Cleene, slaughterman, stated that he lrad taken the lorry without tlie authority of his brother. H© denied that he had heard a whistle which had caused him to turn his head.

Hugh B. Scott stated that ho had witnessed tlie accident. The front wheels of the lorry had appeared to reverse when the driver of the lorry had essayed to turn.

In giving judgment in favour of plaintiff, tlie Magistrate commented that it was an extraordinary case. The other defendants were aware that the driver of the lorry had been engaged partly on business for the farm, but because he could not pay, the other two were endeavouring to evade doing so themselves. There had been no expert evidence called concerning ilie faulty driving gear. Such may have resulted from the collision as there was no suggestion tluit it had been noticed previously, although the lorry had been in the possession of the family for 10 months. All three defendants would be joined as being liable and they themselves could decide who should pay.