MOSGIEL COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21976, 10 June 1933, Page 18

MOSGIEL COURT

Friday, June 2. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DANGEROUS DRIVING. Alexander Hugh Scott was charged with driving a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public.—The defendant, who pleaded guilty, was represented by Mr A. J. H. Jeavons.—Constable Southgate stated that on May 6 the defendant was driving a car on the Main South road proceeding north. About a quarter of a mile past the Henley Hotel he swerved across the road and ran another car off the road. About 300 yards further on the defendant struck a second car, and then swerved cross the road, coming into collision with a taxi. —Counsel for the defence said the offence appear to consist in the action of the defendant in keeping too much to the centre of the road. When he had struck one car it was natural that his own car should be thrown across the road in the track of the second approaching car. The second impact.' therefore, arose almost inevitably from the first one.—ln inflicting a fine of £5 and costs (£3 19s 2d), the magistrate commented Hint this appeared to be a bad case of negligent driving, and the defendant was lucky that he was not in a more serious position. UNEMPLOYMENT LEVIES. Williim O’Leary was charged with defaulting in the payment of an instalment of the unemployment levy.—The defendant was convicted and fined 10s and costs On a similar charge Thomas Alexander M Milium for whom Mr W. P. Hartstouge appeared, was convicted and ordered to pay costs *(143 Cd), JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. A. T. Hendry v, Henry Mitchell, claim £7 2s on a judgment summons.—There was no appearance of the defendant, who was ordered to pay the balance of the amount owing (£5 12s) with costs (13 s tid) forthwith, in default six days’ imprisonment. J. N. Dyke v. P. C. Melhalski, claim £l3 13s 3d on a judgment summons.— There was no appearance of the defendant, who was ordered to pay the amount forthwith with costs (£1). in default 14 clays’ imprisonment. , UNDEFENDED CASES.

Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in the following cases: Annie Millan v. John Connor, claim 15 7s, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 10a 6d): William E. Finnic v. William Little, claim £22 9a lOd, balance of account for goods supplied, with costs t£4 5s 6d). CLAIM UPHELD. Susan M. Watterson v. Bert Marshall, claim £5 for money lent.—Mr Hartstonge appeared for the plaintiff and Mr M. A. Clowes for the defendant. —Evidence was given by the plaintiff and her husband regarding the lending of the money.— Counsel for the defence said the suggestion wag that the debt arose from an illegal transaction. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff's husband approached the defendant, and suggested that they should start a small bookmakiug business, for which the plaintiff’s husband was to provide the capital and bear the losses involved. If this fact was established, counsel submitted that no claim for the recovery of the money lent could be upheld. The defendant gave evidence along the lines of counsel’s statement. —The magistrate said that, as there was no evidence to support the defendant’s story, he could not take it into consideration. The plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount, with costa (£l 13s).