MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

North Otago Times, Volume CV, Issue 13936, 19 July 1917, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

' YESTEUfIAY S SITTING (Befoie Mi J. K, Bartholomew, S.M.) Oivif Oases Judgment foi plniiitift'was nwmtloil in the ease of J Hnnnon (Mi V W Oaglc\) \. AY. Cioft, a claim foi i.4 1 (Comt costs £1 lis, and solicitors fee Broach'of Prohibition Ordor, .l"infi Mcfnfuc Mil chained with a intli of a ]iioliibiUon oidei, The prosecution stated-, that 'Mclntyr.e had liceii found drunk- ,on Siuulnj' night, Tliis had been the 'iirst'.'olt.eriee'. A fine of 10s, in default forty-eight hours' inv prisonnient, was imposed, ' ' ,■ Mbicriet' and' a James Keith', drover (Mr P, W, Ongley) proceeded agflinst Frederick Ludemaii, .farmer,-of Papakaio (Mr P C, Hjorring) to recover £lO as compensation for the loss of a collie dog killed .in collision wilh'a motor,car negligently and unskilfully driven by Eosaline f.iidomau, jwife of. defendant, on the 10th 'of March. James Keith, shepherd, employed by Mr Macdonald, residing near Pukeuri, slated that he drove into Oainaru, and \va3 returning with his collie dog on the Papakaio - road. He was travelling about five miles an hour on his lefthand side of the road, near Papakaio, the dog trot Hug on twenty yards ahead, on 1 the right side of the road. The iirst tiling he noticed was the tail-end of the ■car, which was travelling about twenty miles an hour, No horn was sounded, The deg had stopped, and the ear went over him, There was a butcher's cart about fifteen -yards in front of the dog, lie secured the number of the car, The dog staggered thirty yards to a fence, ami was found dead, He was offered £lO by Mr Rnstbatch for the dog three months previously, and valued him at £l-, He saw Ltideman about the occurrence, who said he was sorry. Defendant said his wife was driving into Oainaru on the Saturday. Witness told Ludeiiian the dog was dead, and lie had answered that he would call in and settle the matter. Defendant had remarked that it was a lot to pay for. other people's joy rides. Defendant saw him ten days later, and offered £5 as compensation, but witness would not accept it. The time of the accident was in daylight, i To Mr Hjorring: lie had two dogs,at the time, one of them tied to th> gig. The dog was able to take care of himself. The ear should have crossed over to Hie left side—its proper side—before : passing the dog. Had' Mr- Ludemnn taken care she could have pulled over in Hie fifteen yards, to her left side. She could have avoided the accident, She.did not swerve over to her loft side, as lie thought she should have done. Witness did not hear the car coining. He saw the number (On. i>S2) on the car. . There was another dog on the road, lie had a conversation with defendant over the dog, and told him lie required £lO, Defendant said he would call and'settle things, Defendant had said that had it not been for Rnsbaeh's dog Hie accident would not have happened, No reason was given for Hie reduction of the offer from £lO to £5, and defendant appeared angry. To Mr Ongley: Defendant, in answer to witness's refusal of the £5 offer, had said, if you don't take .£», you can go to 7—,, and do your best,' ■Annie 801 chain, residing on the Papakaio road, near Pukeuri, said she was in her residence, and heard Hie car 'com-' ling, She heard a heavy bump of the car, which was just going over a rise. She saw Mr Keith, and in company with him found the dead dog. The car did not slow down, but went faster after the collision,

To Mr Hjorring: Witness thought the noise'of the cart would, to llr Keith, drown tjie noise of the ear. Joseph Jiusbach, drover, of Pukemi, said that three months ago he had offered Keith £lO, which was refused. He thought the dog was worth £l2, llr Hjorring submitted to the Bench that the onus cf proof was on the plaintiff. Keith, in order to succeed, must prove Hint itra Ludokin was negligent. It was plaintiff's duty to take care of smell a valuable dog, and when evidence of the witnesses was given no negligence could be proved.

Rosaline Liuleman caid she was returning to Oamaru in her car with her brother-in-law. On going down the Pukcmi hill she saw n trap in front going in the same direction, and well on its right side of the road. She travelled 'a little faster on passing Mr Keith. Just as she was level .with the dog, which seemed to be trotting in front of the horse, the dog crossed the road suddenly, and the car struck him. 'lt was impossible to drive over on to her left side between the horse and the dog. It was a pure accident. There was not a distance of fifteen yards between the horse and the dog. As soon as the car struck the dog she shut off the .petrol, but on being told that the dog Jiad walked away and was not hurt, she drove on again. To Mr Ongley: Witness naturally thought the dog was not injured. She was travelling about fourteen or fifteen miles,an hour just at passing Mr Keith. She was not sure' the horn was not sounded. Witness had commenced to learn car-driving at the beginning of the year.' Frederick Liuleman said the areident j happened on a SaTOrray, and uitnsss

had an interview with plaintiff on the .Monday following on the mat tor. He hail said he would see plaintiff again on obtaining particulars. In tlu*- second interview plaintiff, on being a&ked, said he thought another dog (Rusbaeh's) was partly to blame, Witness offered to moot him half-way in compensation, Plaintiff had refused the offer, and then witness;told him lie could do what he liked. On' the. Saturday night Iris brother had remarked that it was the' fault of the*tlog,- a's he ■had.ero.mvl the road-, but lie (witness) had waited to secure fuller information before set-' tihig. ; ;.; To Mr Hjor'ring: Witness .would have settled the claim had his wife admitted negligence./,; ; , '.-.■" Robert. Ludeman, farmer,,' of Bakaia, J said he was returning to Oamaru with..

isigVvery twelve lililes vjj'n ; . 1) ou.r, 7 ;! gs v tlie wa a. passing •$! -6'?JA"'.yibg crosscit; byer to the right); Jiaild'side^of;tlie;road':with6ut ahv warn-;

"iii : It.-'tVa 3' ini Ji bss i bit .'-for tliec av v 16: 'stop,:: He:<ijcvfir7 L h6i;ice'd,the; dog .until Jlkwns'■■ten; or the' gig'.''Mi's"Ludejnaii^varpulling' up •when he ;■■ noticed the dd* walking away. He did'• not 'tiiiiik!'a carl'epuld'be jiullctl up in twelve yards, and lie did not think the dog whs aw;are of the car's approach, VThe'acc'ideiit'li'appened so long ago that ho could not exactly '.remember what he had said, '. ,

The Magistrate said that the witnesses were' not in 'accord! .and the case could be decided on. the evidence of Mrs Ludeiiian, The,,latter was : not : .sure she had sounded herji'o'rh, which the plain-' lift asserted had not been done, and jiad not kept a good look-out while travelling at fourteen or fifteen miles an■• hr/iir. When she saw tliedog ahead she seemed" to take no furthei' precautions,- which the well-known liability of dogs.to cross roads, would have suggested to •.her; but continued' on her-'course. Her proper action, on seeing the dog was to have, sounded her horn and slojved down, taking steps to avoid the accident, and to have had sufficient control of the car. Failing these the. accident was one of negligence, Plaintiff would be awarded the full amount claimed, £lO, Court costs 17s, solicitor's fee £1 os, and witnesses' expenses £1 Us, •.Failure to Notify Infectious Disoase.

James Campbell, farmer, of Ngnpara (Mr P, C, Hjorring) was charged with a breach of the .Public Health Act in that lie failed to notify the authorities of a case of infectious disease in his house. : ' .Senior-Sergeant Stagpoole piosecuted,

Mr Hjorring said he proposed to shofr that defendant was not,the occupier of the house.

George Sumpter, auctioneer, stated Hint Mrs Balfour, mother-in-law of defendant, had died on 31st of March, and he w.13 one of Hie executors of Hie will. Mrs Balfour had owned a farm at Ngapara, on which Campbell was employed at a weekly wage, and lived with his wife. To his knowledge defendant was neither owner nor occupier of the dwelling.

To Senior-Sergeant Stagpove: Camp bol| was employed by Mrs Balfour as manager.

Constable Anderson, of Duntroon, deposed that Campbell and his wife had been living at Ngapara for aooie (ime. He was in the act of calling at the house for statistics when defendant slopped him, saying he had cases of seaHe; fever in the house, He later saw Hie defendant at a sale, and told defendant that it was not right to congregate with the public, and Hint complaints'had been made. He was told that no medical man' had been called. The ■ statistics •were in Mrs Balfour's name last year as far as he could remember, ne had reported the matter to the sergeant of police.

To Senior-Sergeant (stagpoole: Witness understood that Campbell was Hie manager of the farm and occupier of the premises. The Magistrate here said that no further evidence need be as Campbell was entitled to shelter himself behind his late motheHii-law'o skirts, she being the real ownerof the premises.' The charge was dismissed.