CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19966, 7 December 1926, Page 17

CITY POLICE COURT.

Mo.VD.vr, December 6. (Before Mr H W. Bundle, S.M.) FINED FOR SPEEDING. Thomas Henry Brown, who was defended by Mr A. C. Hanlon, was charged with driving a motor car at a speed dangerous to the public.—Defendant pleaded not guilty.—Assistant Traffic Inspector Dunne! said that on November 23, at 12.15 p.ru., he was standing about 30 yards from the junction of Stuart street and the Octaon. Tlie cable car was loading passengers at the time, and defendant passed at a speed which he estimated at from 18 to 20 miles an hour. When ho approached defendant he made no answers to the charge of speeding.—To Mr Hanlon : Defendant stopped when requested. It was not difficult to estimate the speed of a car coming towards one. It was through experience that ho was able to speed. The street at the corner of Stuart street and the Octagon was on a grade and was narrow. The car stopped opposite whore witness was standing.—The gripmnn on the train car gave corroborative evidence. Had the tramcar started when defendant’s car was coming round the corner, there would have been a collision between the two. He estimated the speed at from 16 to 18 inilss an tour, probably more. Whilst waiting nt the corner he had frequently timed cars coming round, and was thus able to judge their speed. The cable car travelled'at a speed of eight miles an hour, and some motor cars travelled nt double the speed at which witness was travelling. —Walter Kennedy, conductor of the tramcar, said he saw defendant’s car coming up the Octagon from H.B. corner. . It was travelling at from 18 to 20 miles an hour. He hesitated to start the tramcar because of the speed at which defendant was travelling.—Alexander Sligo said that defendant came round the corner at a high speed.— I" Mr Hanlon: Are yon chairman of directors of the Dunodin-Kaikorai Tram Company?—Witness: Yes. That is why you were over at the Kaikorai Valley yesterday afternoon, looking for information? —Mr Hanlon: Are you serious? If that is your type, I do not belong to it.—Witness: I consider it a most impertinent suggestion. I hoard quite distinctly that you were there.—Mr Hanlon: Well, ’ 1 can say quito frankly that I was not. there. I was at the St. Clair golf links yesterday afternoon, and spent my time there. I was in bed in the morning. Mr Hanlon, continuing, said this judging of speed was a lot of humbug..—Defendant, in evidence, said he was manager of Methven’s, and had been driving his own car up that route for a period ot six or seven years. His car was a Chrysler four-cylinder. He was always changed down to second gear when I crossing Princes street and then into flrsr as ho ascended the rise. He estimated his speed at from 12 to 16 miles an hour. He had absolute control of the car. The car would not do 20 miles an hour round that corner if driven in the way witness drove it. There was no danger to the public when ho went along on the day in question.—To Mr M’Nickle: The Chryslers were good cars for hill-climbing. He was aware | it_ was a dangerous corner. He was con- i victecl for speeding previously. On that occasion he knocked a man off a bicycle. He was not fined for that.—The Magistrate said that a man must take groat care going round that corner. Defendant said he could not have travelled round the | corner at the speed alleged. On the other ) hand, it was alleged by the prosecution that he was travelling at a faster rate of speed.-—After hearing all the evidence, he was satisfied that defendant was travelling at a speed dangerous to the public. Defendant would be fined 20s, and would be ordered to pay costs amounting to 335. MAINTENANCE. William Ernest MDougall was charged with failing to maintain his wife.—Mr J. N. Macfarlano appeared for the camplainant, and asked for separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders.—His Worship said ho would adjourn the case till December 13. Ho would like Ensign Coombs to discuss the matter with the parties. He remarked that it was very easy to get a separation order, and harm was sometimes done. John Andrew Paterson, for whom Mr O’Shea appeared, was charged with a complaint by his wife for separation and I maintenance orders.—Mr Simpson appeared I for complainant, who staled in evidence j that she_ was separated from her husband : and received 30s per week from him. This was agreed to under the deed of separation. She did t.ot consider the 30s was ! sufficient. She was in ill-health. She kept | a fruit shop, hut there was very little ; profit in it. Her son, 16 years of ago, 1 resided with her. She understood that her i husband earned £5 9s per week. She had ( got into debt, and she wanted to put -her 1 son into a trade. She would not go back to her husband under any circumstances. She would require an allowance of £2 in order to keep out of debt. She resided over the shop, and paid 27s 6d per w-eek rent. The boy would not go back to his father.—To Mr O'Shea: There was no money owing under the agreement. The last payment was made 'since the present proceedings were initiated.—William Palmer Foley said he was a painter. Ho was sent down to Otautau by Mrs Paterson on July 21 of this year to inquire about her husband’s conduct. He met defendant in the old cemetery with a woman. When j he confronted them the woman ran away. | Defendant told witness that if witness would ; not tell his wife of his doings he would agree to pay maintenance. —To Mr O'Shea : On returning to Dunedin he sent a telegram to Paterson at Otautau in the name of Forbes. That was the name he was known to Paterson as.—To the Magistrate: Ho was a customer at Mrs Paterson’s shop. He was given £5 by Mrs Paterson to go to Otautau.— His Worship: What other evidence have you Mr Simpson? The apph cations are dismissed. John Henry James Gallon applied for the variation of a maintenance order with respect to three children which were in a Presbyterian home.—Mr P. L. Clark appeared for the Presbyterian Social Service Association, and Mrs Gallon, who represented her husband, said she was the stepmother of the three children referred to. She had two children of her own. Her husband’s earnings amounted to £4 per week. They could not pay £1 19s per fortnight towards the upkeep of the children in the home.—Mr Clark said he would be quite content if Gallon would pay something towards the keep of the children in the homo; the children should not be handed over to the P.S.S.A. permanently and kept for nothing.—An order was made for the remission of the arrears and for the payment of 4s per week with respect to each child. William Eric Ross, who was represented by Mr B. S. Irwin, was proceeded against by his wife, for Whom Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared, for separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders,—Air Irwin said the defendant had been arrested at Bluff, and he thought ho would he able to satisfy his learned friend that Ross had no intention of leaving the country if an adjournment were granted. His Worship granted an adjournment for a week, defendant to be released on his own recognisance of £25, and one surety of the same amount, one condition being that he reported daily to the police.