OAMARU COURTS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19551, 6 August 1925, Page 2

OAMARU COURTS.

SERIES OF CHARGES HEARD. (From Oub Own Coreespondent.) . OAMARU, August 5. At the Oamaru Magistrates’ Court today, Mr Bundle, S.M., dealt with a number of by-law breaches. For permitting his car to stand in Thames street for a period exceeding 15 minutes on a stand other than a parking place, Robert Mathieson was fined 5s and costs. On a charge of permitting their cars _ to stand on a licensed taxi stand for a period exceeding IS minutes, James M‘Diarmid (Mayor) and Charles Hay (Enfield) were prosecuted by the police, Mr A. G. Creagh appearing for the defendant M'Diarmid and Senior Sergeant Shanahan for tile prosecution. Hay pleaded guilty. Mr Creagh pleaded guilty for M'Diarmid to a “technical, trivial breach of the bylaw,” but added that on the day of the offence there was no other room in the other parking places. He could call witnesses to that effect if necessary. In reply to the magistrate, Mr Creagh stated that it was not possible for defendant to leave his car down a side street as he would be unable to come out from the council meeting every 15 minutes to remove his car. Mr M'Diarmid was usually very careful to observe the by-laws. Mr Bundle, in dismissing the two charges as trivial, referred to Mr M'Diarmid’s fortunate or unfortunate position of being Mayor of Oamaru. However, in this present case, the offence was a technical one only, and taking into consideration the circumstances, the charges would be dismissed. George Hodkinson (Tota.ra) was charged with failing to send two children to school The magistrate adjourned the ca»,. for a' fortnight to allow the police to make inquiries. A. A .Wilkinson, surveyor (Queenstown), claimed £2l Is from Kenneth Mathieson (Kakanui) for surveying work done. Lengthy evidence was given by plaintiff as to work done. The defence was that the contract had not been complied wth and the charges were excessive. Kenneth Mathieson gave evidence as to the om. ployment of Wilkinson, the fees arranged and work done. The sum of £4 4s a day had been the charge arranged. Eight sections had been sold at auction, but in the case of the fifth, the purchase money had been returned as the sections did not have sufficient frontage. Mr Hjorring, who acted for defendant in connection with the sale of the section, also gave evidence. He held that the onus of carrying out the survey rested on Mr \\ ilkmson. He should have made a plan that would have passed the Land Transfer Office. The charges were reasonable, if the work were of any use. After hearing counsel, the magistrate reviewed the evidence, stating that the charge for the first subdivision, £l2 10s, was quite reasonable. The second subdivision had been abortive, hut plaintiff was entitled to some payment for his work The amount of this work would be fixed at £6 ss. As £5 had already been paid, judgment would be for plaintiff for £l4 15s, with costs.