FEILDING MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 2728, 10 July 1925, Page 9

FEILDING MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

UNLIGHTED VEHICLE CAUSES SMASH AND RUNAWAY. Arising out of the recent trap smash and runaway in North road ,a drover, Harry Ferguson,, through his solicitor (Mr L. A. Elliott), pleaded guilty at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday to a charge of driving a vehicle at night without having lights attached. Sergeant Cahill, who prosecuted explained that a mtor cyclist collided with the rear of the trap in North street and as a result, the horse bolted and came into collision with a motor vehicle driven by a storekeeper of Makino. Mr Elliott explained that the defendant had taken delivery of certain sheep, which were to be placed in a paddock in Pharazyn street. Several of the sheep got away and the defendant took some time in collecting them. Darkness came on, and he was proceeding to his home; /Which was a few chains off, when the motor cyclist came on the scene. He would have been home, before darkness set in had the sheep not escaped. In imposing a fine of 10/- and costs, Mr R. M. Watson. S.M., said that the accident might have been more serious but it .appeared to be one of the cases in which the dispensation of Providence had enabled the parties to escape serious hurt. After all. it was cheaper to provide lamps than pay fines.

Another Instance of no Lights. Thomas Leen, of Awahuri, admitted a charge of driving a trap at night without showing lights, and in this case also, an accident had occurred. According to Sergeant Cahill, Leen was proceeding to his home beyond Awahuri when he stopped the trap on the bridge. A motor car coming from the direction of Palmerston North crashed into Leen’s cart and both vehicles were much damaged. Leen’s vehicle did not have a light. The Magistrate said that he was not inclined to raise the fine in this case. It was defendant's own fault to a large extent. He would be fined 10/- and costs. Railway Crossing Smash, Robert McAlley, the driver of the motor car whicn came in contact with a train whilst endeavouring to cross the Kimbolton road railway crossing, pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to obey the Government Railways regulations respecting crossings. Mr C. Taylor appeared for the defendant and explained that McAlley, together with two friends, left Bain’s garage at about 7.55 p.m., on the evening of the accident and was proceeding to Beattie street when the collision occurred. McAlley heard a train whistle, but thought it came from the station and therefore concentrated his attention in that direction as he neared the crossing. As the car was about to go over the crossing, his companion, Noble, caught hold of the wheel, but McAlley said it was all right, and at tne same moment realised that ho was on the train, and too late to avoid a smash. Noble’s action was to let McAlley know that the train was coming from the other direction. All the occupants were more or less injured—the defendant receiving a fracture of the skull—and had had a severe lesson. There was no question of speeding—it was a case of neglect to keep a proper look-out Sergeant Cahill said that McAlley and his friend were very fortunate in escaping with their lives. A good deal had been said about this crossing being dangerous, but he did not agree that it was. If people kept a proper look-out and exercised every care, there was really ' little danger. There wore four lights over the crossing—it was a good wide thoroughfare —and an observance of the railway notice to stop and look out for the engine would have avoided the accident. There was no reason to believe that McAlley was speeding to beat the train. He had been previously convicted for speeding, and if he came before the Court again, the Sergeant would ask the Court to cancel his license.

The Magistrate states that defendant had been convicted of speeding, but the present offence was not a breach of the Motor Regulations Act. and therefore the Court had no power to cancel the license. In regard to the crossing, the Bench considered that the Sergeant would admit that it was at least dangerous at night time. Sergeant Cahill agreed that perhaps there was some danger at night time. The engine had been damaged to the extent of 5/-, and the Railway Department would require this to be made good. McAlley was convicted and fined 20/-' and- costs 7/-, and ordered to make good the damage done to the engine. Other Cases. R. A. Lyne was lined 10/- and costs

7/- for riding a bicycle at night without a light. For failing to register a firearm, M. F. Wlldbore was fined 10/- and costs 7/-. In a charge of exceeding the speed limit through Kimbolton, Norman Alfred Miller was fined 30/- and costs 7/-. For leaving their respective motcr vehicles on roads at night without proper lights showing E. D. {Andrews and V. G. Clift were each fined 10/-. and H. J. Bailey 5/- and costs. Maintenance Order, j Charles Baer, farmer, of Inglewood, was ordered to contribute towards the maintenance of his aged mother the sum of 15/- per week, and pay costs £2 2/-. Sharemilkers’ Claim. Reserved judgment in the civil action Bailey and Benge v. C. J. Rumkin, farmer, of Cunninghams, was delivered by Mr R. M. Watson S.M., yesterday morning. The plaintiffs wore sharemilkers employed by the defendant, and claimed jointly for a sum> £99 7/8 respresenting moneys alleged to be due in connection with their contract. By a separate claim, Bailey sought to recover the sum of £8 being the value of a heifer alleged to have been sold to Rumkin and also for the return of balance alleged to have been overcharged for meat Supplied. The defendant counter-claimed for £IBO 12/- made up of damages alleged to have been suffered by rcasson of defendants’ refusing to hand over the herd test records, the calving dates of the herd, and a breach of contract by the plaintiffs. In delivering judgment, the Magistrate said that in regard to Bailey’s claim, the evidence was against a sale of the heifer, which was still on the farm and available for collection by plaintiff. Judgment would be for defendant on this claim with costs £1 1/-. In regard to the main claim and counter-claim, His Worship went into the various causes of action raised by both parties, and after reviewing the circumstances as supported by the evidence, gave judgment for the plaintiffs on the claim for £64 6/4, with costs £9 13/-, and for Rumkin on the counter claim for £4l with costs £8 16/-.

At the hearing, Mr Cooper of Palmerston North appeared f<sr the plaintiffs, and Mr Graham ,of Pending, for the defendant. Motor v. Cow.

Alleging that on the night of March 15, a cow owned by George Arnett, farmer, of Rongotea, charged his motor car, Joseph Gould, draper, of Rongotea, sought to recover the sum of £l7 2/6 representing cost of repairs carried out to the ear. In his evidence, Gould stated that he. together with his family, was proceeding along a highway near liongotea when a cow belonging to the defendant, which was wandering on the road, charged the car and did much damage to the radiator. Gould junior who was driving the car, stated that he noticed the cow off the road in amongst some scrub, about fifteen feet away, when the vehicle was travelling at about ton miles an hour. He was coming down a slight decline, when the cow came on the scene, and he applied the brakes, but before lie could stop, the cow had hit the car and then proceeded on to the defendant’s property. Plaintiff had interviewed the defendant at five o’clock the following morning, but notwithstanding that the defendant had promised to call and see him, nothing had been done.

On being cross-examined, plaintiff admitted that the cow crossed in front of the car and did not charge it. The car was travelling at about 10 miles ,an hour when it hit the cow. After the plaintiff's case had been given, the Bench remarked that there was apparently a legal misconception of the action. Even if the cow was wandering on the road, it did not give the ’plaintiff a right of action, and His Worship proceeded to quote judgments of similar cases where it had been laid down that the fact of wandering stock coming into contact with vehicles did not constitute a right of action against the owner of the stock. Hr J. C. Hill, on behalf of the plaintiff, submitted that the decisions in the cases cited by the Magistrate had to do with happenings in daylight, and made no direct reference to such accidents occurring at n.ght. Counsel quoted from the remarks of a judgment in a case which made reference to a probable cause of action if the accident took place at night time. By the fact that the accident happened at night time, counsel submitted, took the case outside the general rule laid down for such cases.

Mr J. Graham, for the defendant, moved for a non suit, apart altogether from the legal view of such cases. He submitted that on the evidence of the plaintiff and his son, as to the speed of the car at the time of the accident, there must have been contributory negligence. Counsel found it difficult to understand how plaintiff came to hit the cow taking into consideration the speed the car was travelling, and the fact that the driver had the brake on. His Worship said that ho would reserve the non suit point and give his decision on . Saturday morning. The defence was not proceeded with and the case was adjourned. Judgment by Default. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following undefended cases O. A. Thompson v. A. Sutton. £5 16/-, costs £1 10/6; A. Hawker v. A. W. Smith, £5 9/6, costs fl 16/6; W. M. Rowe v. F, Lack, £4 6/-. costs £1 3/6; A. R. W. Scott v. Wallace D Young, £ls, costs- £2 14/-; A. J. Humphreys v. A. V, Sutton (late of Fell ding), £4 10/,11, costs £1 3/6; Feilding Farmers’ Freezing Company Ltd., v. S- Havill, £6 i2/8, costs £1 11/6; C. J. Larsen v. iA. C. Benson, £l2, costs £2 14/-.