MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21021, 9 May 1930, Page 13

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, May 8. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases;—Bruce Railway and Coal Company, Ltd. v. E.J. Waite, claim 12s 9d for goods supplied, with,costs 8s; George Stephens v. Allan. Harlow Mackie (Temuka), claim 7s, costs only; Kennedy Bros. v. H. J. Mitchell, claim £1 2s 7d for goods supplied, with costs (9s) ; Reid and Isaacs v. T. Ryan, claim £5 5s for goods supplied, with costs (£1 10s) ; D.I.C. Ltd. v. R. Miller (Port Chalmers), claim £3 14s 5d for goods supplied, with costs, (£1 3s 6d) ; C. and W. Shiel, Ltd. v. Angus-Mackay, claim £lll3s 6d for goods supplied, with costs (£2 17s) ; W. Low v. J. Wright (Otokia), claim £1 7s for professional services rendered, with costs (12s) ; Otago Hospital Board v. L. Muir (Kurow), claim £9 9s for maintenance in Dunedin Hospital, with costs (£1 10s 6d) ; J. and J. Arthur, Ltd. v. Robert Leslie Fletcher (Arrowtown), claim £7 2s 6d for goods supplied, with costs (£l 10s 6d) ; same v. Stanley Lloyd, claim £7 17s for goods supplied, with costs £1 11s 6d) ; Gibb and Cessford v. J. A. Finn, claim £1 12s 6d for goods supplied and work done, with costs (8s) ; A. Clearwater v. J. Jeffery, claim £1 12s 5d for goods supplied, with costs (10s) ; A. S. Paterson and Co„ Ltd. v. A. Dawson (Kenniugton), claim £i 19s 4d for. goods supplied, with costs (10s). • 1 AN UNUSUAL COLLISION. His Worship delivered his reserved decision in the case in which Gordon Arthur Brown (Mr Buchler) proceeded against Louis George Birkner (Mr King) and Alexander Donald Woodrow (Mr H. E. Barrowclough) on a claim to recover £lOl 19s. Birkner also proceeded against Woodrow on a claim for £2G 2s 4d, damages as the result of the collision, although this amount was later reduced to £8 10s. —-At the original hearing evidence was given by the plaintiff Brown to the effect that he left his car in Hanover street about 50 feet from the intersection of Cumberland and Hanover streets, and shortly afterwards the cars driven by the two defendants collided. After this collision the plaintiff claimed that, as a result of the negligent driving of Birkner’s car, it collide'd with his car. He estimated the damage and cost of repairs at £B3 19s, and the temporary loss of the car for business purposes at £lB. —After hearing the evidence his Worship said that Woodrow’s negligence was responsible for the second collision. Judgment would therefore be given against him for £BS 18s 6d, with costs (£2 10s), witnesses expenses (15s), and solicitor’s fee (£C 5s 6d). Following on this decision, his Worship said he had no alternative but to give judgment against Woodrow in the other case also, and judgment for the plaintiff would be given for £26,2s 4d, with costs (£2), witness’s expenses (15s), and solicitor’s fee (£4 3s). MOTOR CYCLIST’S CLAIM. Reserved decision was given in the case in which Edward Ward Crawford proceeded against John Harold Brighting and John Charles Brighting on a claim for £239 4s 6d damages arising out of 'a collision between a motor car driven by the first defendant and owned .by John Charley Brighting, and the 1 plaintiff’s motor cycle.—At the original hearing the plaintiff was represented by- Mr A., C. Hanlon, whilst Mr W., G. Hay appeared for the defendants.—His Worship said that he was of opinion that the accident was due to the careless driving of John Harold Brighting and that the amount claimed was reasonable and might fairly be allowed. Judgment would accordingly be given against both defendants for £173 14s 6d, with, costs (£8 17s), and solicitor’s fee (£9 13s 6d). Plaintiff was also entitled to recover against John Harold Bfighting for £l6 for repairs to his motor- cycle and for shoes destroyed by the collision, with solicitor’s fee (16s),