MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 259, 30 September 1936, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

MISCELLANEOUS CASES. Tlio fortnightly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday, Mr It. M. Watson, S.M., presiding. : Elizabeth Bork, who ivas charged with using obscene language, was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months. She was ordered to pay 18s costs immediately. A. E. Oliver was charged wtih committing two breaches of the motor regulations in that ho overloaded his lorry and failed to have a reflector fitted to his lorry. The informations were laid by the Traffic Inspector (Mr W. Berry). Defendant was fined £4, with costs 10s, on the first charge, and 30s, and costs 10s, on the second. C. Squires, for having no reflector on his lorry, was fined 30s, with costs 10s.

S. L. Kemp was convicted and ordered to pay 12s costs on a charge of parking a car on Aorangi Road without lights.

Francis Rogers, of Taikorea, for whom Mr G. I. McGregor appeared, applied for the variation of a maintenance order of £1 7s 9d per week, in favour of his wife, Rose Violet Rogers. Ho also applied for the arrears, amounting to £9l 5s 9d, to be cancelled. After hearing evidence, the Magistrate said that ho was prepared to reduce the order to 17s 6d per week while the arrears would be cancelled with the exception of £5. SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

Arising out of a motor car accident which occurred on July 24 last, the police took action against William

Hinton, farm manager, of Colyton, who was charged with having failed to give way to traffic approaching from the right at the Kimbolton Road-Denbigh Street intersection.

Sergeant Angland said that defendant was leaving Feilding via Kiinbolton Road in his car. He had as passengers his wife and a neighbour, Mi's Whittaker. Loo Harold Sandbrook, another motorist, was proceeding along Denbigh Street and intended crossing Kimbolton Road and continuing along Denbigh Street. Sandbrook noticed defendant and applied his brakes. Sandbrook’s car struck defendant’s car on the right rear wheel. Defendant’s rolled over and injuries were sustained by defendant and his wife. Defendant had been driving a touring model. The road was dry, and defendant had a good view of the intersection and of traffic approaching from Denbigh Street on his right.

Leo Sandbrook, in his evidence, said that he remembered driving his car (a three-seater model) along Denbigh Street. As he came to tire intersection he sounded his horn, looked first to the right and then to the left, and proceeded across at a speed of 12 miles an hour. He was driving on the correct side. He saw defendant’s car when it was 16ft away, and applied his brakes. Defendant’s car swerved in and hit witness’s car on the left front wheel. Defendant’s car skidded 16ft before turning over. Witness allowed his car to continue for its own length after the impact and then went to the assistance of the occupants of the other car. Witness estimated defendi ant’s speed at 30 miles an hour, but lie was not prepared to say if defendant would have a clear .visibility through the side curtains. Skid marks on the metal portion of the road indicated that defendant’s car had got out of control and swerved in towards witHGSS’S Cell*. To Mr P. E. Baldwin, for defendant, witness denied having told Mrs Whittaker that he had not seen defendant’s car. He was half-way across the intersection when ho saw the defendant’s car, the speed of which he estimated at 30 miles an hour. Witness further denied that he was travelling on the right-hand side of the road. The Magistrate asked- witness whether he considered there would have been a collision had lie (witness) continued and defendant continued in thenrespective directions. Witness said he thought there would still have been an accident. Constable Johnson stated that lie had prepared a plan showing the positions of the cars, etc. He interviewed defendant on August 10; defendant declined to make a statement, but answered a few questions regarding the speed lie had been travelling at. Crossexamined regarding the position of the cars, witness said that Sandbrook had a good view, although scrubby trees would have interfered with the view to a certain extent.

Colin George Firtli gave evidence that he was cycling along Kimbolton Road on the cycle track next to the footpath, and as lie came to the intersection ho saw a car proceeding in the direction of Cheltenham. When he first saw the car it was 10 to 12 yards on the town side of the intersection and i was travelling on the correct side. Although he noticed the other car coming along Denbigh Street, headed in the direction of Makino, he did not actually see the impact. Defendant, in evidence, stated that he had seen Sandbrook’s car approaching some 00 yards away. Witness was travelling at 18 to 20 miles an hour and did .not think there was any need to give way, because he was sure he would be past the intersection before the other car reached it. Cross-examined by Sergeant Angland, defendant said that he had been driving a motor-ear for five years. He estimated Sandbrook’s speed at 30 miles an hour—almost three, times the speed of his car. To Mr P. C. Miles (also appearing for defendant). Mrs Hinton, of defendant, said that her husband was driving at 15 miles an hour. He was a careful driver. Witness did not see the other car until it was close by; it was travelling at a fast rate. "Witness was sitting next her husband, in the front seat, and there were only side curtains in the hack portion of the car. Witness thought their car could get across the intersection and that Sandbrook’s would proceed behind. To Sergeant Angland, witness said that she did not know which wheel was struck by Sandbrook’s car. Mrs Marion "Whittaker, a passenger in defendant’s car, gave evidence that she was sitting in the back seat oi l

defendant’s car. She saw the other car approaching some distance away but did not think there was any possibility of an accident. Sandbrook later asked her if she had been in defendant’s car and when she replied in the affirmative Sandbrook had said, “I never saw you.” This concluded the evidence.

The Magistrate said that the charge was one of failure to observe the right-hand rule. It was in no way the duty of tlhe Court to say which of the two parties was to blame. The question was whether or not a breach of the regulations had been committed by defendant. Defendant had exaggerated the speed of Sandbrook’s car. It was defendant’s duty to give wav to traffic approaching on his right. Defendant, who had not previously been convicted, would be fined £l, with costs £1 17s.