MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 72, 24 February 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. v Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., presided at the sitting of the Magistrate’s Court yesterday atternoon. Mrs A. J. Berryman proceeded against S. Santos, of Clifton Road, on a claim for damages amounting to. £l4 Is 3d as the sequel to a motor collision which occurred at the intersection of Rangitikei Street and the Square. Mr Cooper apeared for plaintiff and Mr McGregor for defendant. Counsel for plaintiff said it wasalleged that defendant had driven negligently and unskilfully. Immediately prior to the collision with plaintiff on December 13 of 1030 he had collided with another car and then gone on to strike plaintiff’s vehicle. . . Evidence was given by plaintiff that the accident occurred just after another one in the same vicinity. She had just heard the crash when her car was struck on the back _ mudguard. Cross-examined, plaintiff said . she heard the noise of the other collision, but did not see it as she was watching the road. Plaintiff said she was not crossing the intersection, but merely turning to the left round the corner.. Evidence was given by E. R. Wimsett that at the same intersection, just as he was turning to the right into the Square, defendant, coming from the memorial, struck his car. A lady crossing the road fell over with excitement, and he then heard the noise of another collision. He looked across and saw Mrs Berryman’s car half way through the door of business premises on the corner. Defendant, witness added, subsequently informed witness that he lost control of his car, did not know .where he was, and crashed into plaintiff’s car.

Counsel for defendant said that Mr Wimsett had emerged from Rangitikei Street without giving a signal and when turning in front of defendant almost pulled up suddenly. Defendant swerved, but could not avoid the car and struck it. Defendant was thrown out of his seat by the impact and lost control. Mrs Berryman could have avoided being involved had she pulled up immediately. Evidence was given on those lines by defendant. R. Perrin gave evidence that he saw the collisions. Witness said that Mr Wimsett’s car almost stopped dead when defendant’s vehicle was a car length away. Mrs .Berryman was quite a distance away ■ then. The Magistrate said it seemed that defendant nad the last opportunity to avoid the accident. He ought to have given way to both vehicles. Mrs Berryman was perfectly justified in turning the corner. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £9. Is 3d with costs totalling £3. CLAIMS DISMISSED. E. W. Croucher (Mr Grant), a farmer, of Fitzherbert, proceeded against Rush Bros. (Mr Ongley), milk vendors, seeking damages amounting to £26 13s as the sequel to a collision between his car and a milk cart owned by defendant, who counter-claimed for £2O 5s 4d. Plaintiff, in evidence, stated that ho was an experienced driver. On the Sunday morning in question the visibility had been poor, owing to rain. He had been proceeding from South Street, via Linton Street and Church Street, to the Square, and when near the Linton Street intersection he had collided with a horse and cart. The first intimation he had of the presence of another vehicle was the horse rearing up and something coming I .through the windscreen to' strike'Tiini ‘a glancing blow. The car 'had then travelled its- own length out of control. There had been ho chance of avoiding an accident. Cross-examined, plaintiff said that he had been up all night and had had drink at a gathering in Palmerston North.

For the defence, counsel explained that defendant had been slightly over the crown of the road and travelling at a walk when the car came around the corner. Defendant had turned the cart more on to its correct side, but despite the fact that the car’s lights had been on the cart, no effort nad been made to stop the car. Although there might have been contributory negligence in being slightly on the wrong side of the road at the outset, defendant had made every attempt, when the car was three chains away, to avoid an accident. Norman Rush, of Rush Bros., said he had been delivering milk at 4.30 o’clock on the morning of the accident. There had been a hurricane lamp on the cart, which had proceeded from the Square into Church Street when plaintiff’s car had oome around the Linton Street corner and made straight for the horse. He could see no reason why plaintiff had not seen the vehicle in the glare of the headlights. After the collision witness had accused one of the party in the car of having too much drink. The Magistrate considered that the car had emerged from Linton Street at such an angle that the lights should have picked up the cart. Probably, however, the. driver of the car had had his attention distracted by the passenger who desired to alight. The headlights should have made the cart clear and, had plaintiff been driving carefully, he could have stoped in time to avoid the collision. On the other hand, contributory negligence had been revealed in the caso_ of defendant, who was on the wrong side, of the road. The claim and counter-claim would both be dismissed without costs to either party. CHARGE OF THEFT. A domestic aged 48 years appeared before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day charged with the theft at Palmerston North on December 31 last of a diamond ring valued at £5, the property of Alfred Penketh. Senior-Detective Quirke stated that accused was a hard-working woman whose husband had been dead eight or ten years, and she had reared her children herself. She had found the ring upon the floor of a shop in. Palmerston North and retained it. Subsequently she visited a pawn-shop in Wellington and received 8s for it. A detective happened to be on the premises at the time and questioned her, whereupon she related the circumstancs of how it had come into her possession. SeniorDetective Quirke suggested that accused’s name should be suppressed, os she had a son in a responsible position, and it was a severe blow to him. The Magistrate commented that most people seemed to have the mistaken idea that what they found they were entitled to keep. Unless they took steps to find the owner they were really committing, theft. The present case was hardly a criminal one. Accused’s name was supressed and she was ordered to come up for sentence at any time within twelve months if called upon.