MOTUEKA

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 22 May 1936, Page 2

MOTUEKA

MAGISTRATE’S COURT THIS WEEK’S BUSINESS (From Our Own Correspondent) At the sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Motueka on Thursday, Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M. dealt with the following business: BREACHES OF MOTOR REGULATIONS Horace Anzac Marshall was charged that, on 22nd March, 1930, being the rider of a motor cycle and travelling along Queen Victoria street, Motueka, lie did fail to give way to a motor car, approaching on his right hand along King Edward street, thereby causing a collision on the intersection of the two streets. Marshall was convicted and lined £1 10s, costs 12s. For driving at Tasman, on 10th April, a heavy motor vehicle, at a speed exceeding the maximum speed of 20 miles per hour, provided for such class of motor vehicle, Guy McKee was convicted and fined £3 costs 12s. ARMS ACT Horace Edward Brougham for being in possession of an unlawful weapon, an automatic pistol, was convicted and lined £2, costs 10s. Brougham was also charged that on 13th March at Motueka he did deliver possession of a firearm, an automatic pistol, to one Ernest William Sampson, the said Ernest W. Sampson not being the holder of a permit, issued to him by an officer of Police, pursuant to regulations under the Arms Act, 1020 Brougham was convicted and discharged. CLAIM FOR £O4 Claude Manson Duncan (Mr Fell) claimed from John Llewlyn Duncan and Theodore Duncan (Mr Thorp) the sum of £O4 in respect to alleged partnership accounts. After hearing the evidence of the plaintiff and of the defendants, Mr Maunsell reserved his decision. In the statement of claim it was set out, inter alia:—That for some years prior to 1935, plaintiff and defendants were carrying on the business of farmers in partnership upon lands, belonging to the defendant, John Llewellyn Duncan, the arrangement being that the land of the defendant was to be worked in partnership and, after payment of interest on the mortgages on the property and rates and insurance, and after paying working expenses, the proceeds were to be divided equally between the three partners; that the partnership carried on general farming business and grew hops and tobacco and for convenience the proceeds and takings of the business were paid into the banking account of the defendant, J. L. Duncan; and from time to time distributions on account were made by the defendant (J. L. Duncan) but no final adjustment of accounts was ever made; that the partnership was terminated or came to an end in July, 1935, and the defendants have retained possession of the partnership assets and have failed or refused to pay over or give an account of the plaintiffs’ share of the i partnership profits. The plaintiff claims from the defendants, the sum of £O4 made up in respect to partnership accounts or that in the alternative tile plaintiff prays for an order that the partnership assets be realised and converted into money arid the plaintiff be paid his net share and that a receiver be appointed to take possession of the assets and realise the same, and wind up the partnership affairs, and, in addition, the plaintiff claims an account of the partnership profits and workings and paymentof the balance found due to him and. such further and other order or relief in the premises as to the cjjurt seems just. The plaintiff says the amount involved does not exceed £3OO and he abandons any excess above £3OO, should it be found that, on taking accounts, his total claim exceeds such sum.” RESERVED DECISIONS At the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, in a reserved decision, in which Malcolm Percy Moffatt was charged with failing to keep to the left of the centre line of the road, as far as practicable, when driving a motor vehicle at Waiwliero, on 4th February, 1930, the Magistrate (Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., convicted and fined defendant £2 and costs £1 os. Action, which was taken by the Police, was the sequel to a collision at a corner, which, in the Magistrate’s opinion, was a decidedly dangerous one, the result of the accident being that one, Bond sustained serious injuries. Further, the Magistrate expressed the opinion that it was clearly practicable for defendant to have kept over on his left hand side and to the left of the centre line. He failed to do so and he therefore broke the regulation. The fact that the motor cyclist was doing likewise was not relevant to the present charge and the defendant must be convicted. Constable Adams prosecuted and Mr N. J. Lewis appeared for defendant.

Reserved decision was also given in the case in which Charles Gantenby was charged with riding a motor cycle in King Edward street, Motneka, on 23rd January, 1930, in such a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, was dangerous to the public or any other person. The prosecution arose from the fact that defendant was driving a motor cycle along King Edward street when he ran into and injured a pedestrian who was pushing a bicycle. The evidence was that this street was poorly lighted with the result that there were a number of dark spots on the road. The defence was that. defendant was driving at a reasonable speed and was keeping a proper look out, but failed to see the pedestrian in time to avoid running him down and he attributed this to the insufficient manner in which the street was lighted. After reviewing the facts the Magistrate, who “accepted the defence with considerable' reserve,” adopted the opinion, expressed by the Traffic Inspector, that the defendant should have been able to see the bicycle, seeing that it had a red reflector and white mudguard. A fine of £2 with 18s costs was inflicted. Constable Adams prosecuted and Mr C. W. Thorp represented defendant.