MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22711, 25 October 1935, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, October 24. (Before Mr J. R- Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was, given for the plaintiffs in the following cases: Coull, Somerville, Wilkie, Ltd., v. G. Beattie (Kati Kati), claim £3 9s 3d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 fid) ; A. and T. Burt v. Ben Lodi Mining Company (Christchurch), claim £33 fis° Bd, for goods supplied, with costs (£5 Os fid) ; John Chambers and Son., Ltd, v. Robert W. Winter (Morven), claim £1 2s, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 8s) ; Otago Hospital Board v. Richard Dense (Kotuku), claim £9, for mantenance and treatment in Dunedin Hospital, with costs (£2 3s fid). JUDGMENT SUMMONS. T. W. Dobbie v. James Jephson, claim £3 Is lid, on a judgment summons.— The debtor did not appear, and an order was made for immediate payment of the amount, with costs {fis)> in default three days’ imprisonment. MOTOR CYCLIST’S CLAIM. The hearing of the case in which William Ritchie proceeded against Stuart Alexander Moore, claiming £5 18a fid, as damages arising out of a collision between a motor cycle driven by him and a car in charge of the defendant was concluded. —Mr W. P. Hartstonge appeared for the plaintiff and Mr E. J. Anderson for the defendant. —At the original hearing it was contended that, on January 26, as the plaintiff was riding his motor cycle along Gordon road, Mosgiel, the defendant’s car collided with the rear of his machine at the intersection of that road and Wickliffe street. As a result of the collision his cycle was damaged and he also suffered personal injury. He contended that the defendant was to blame for the accident in that he had failed to keep a propen look-out at the intersection, to apply his brakes in time, and to give warning of his approach. —An eye-wit-ness of the collision, who tendered evidence at the first hearing, stated that in his opinion the defendant, knowing he was in the wrong, had hurried away from the scene of the accident before the police came.—Constable Phillips stated that when he arrived Ritchie was , too dazed to give a statement. There was no car there, but marks on the road indicated that the defendant had cut the corner when turning out of Wickliffe street into Gordon road.—Mr Anderson said that the plaintiff’s account of how the accident occurred seemed a highly improbable one and that, through speed and incorrect road position, Ritchie was the author of his own trouble. The defendant had come out of Wickliffe street and, finding it necessary to turn, saw that the road was clear, signalled, and turned. It was alleged that the plaintiff was well over on his incorrect side of the road and that when he saw the defendant’s car he shot across to regain his correct side, and skidded into the back of the defendant’s car.— The defendant, in evidence, admitted that he cut the corner, but explained that he did not do so until he had seen that the road was perfectly clear. As ho turned, he stopped, and saw the plaintiff coming along on his wrong side, and apparently unconscious of the presence of the car. When the defendant noticed the car, he attempted to regain his correct side, and the next thing witness knew was that his car was struck on the rear. He got out and assisted Ritchie to rise, and the latter told him that he (Ritchie) had been driving too fast, replying, when questioned by witness, that he felt all right. Witness remained with Ritchie for five or six minutes and was speaking to him practically all the time. Witness dial not give ins name, as the plaintiff had practically apologised to him and admitted he was in the wrong. —His Worship: Confine yourself to what he did say, and do not paraphrase. That is most improper. —Asked by Mr Hartstonge whether the plaintiff appeared dazed, the defendant said that he was not dazed at the time, but might have become so as a result of the appearance of the constable. —The magistrate: Are you serious when you say that?—Yes; there has been some wilful lying and perjury. —The magistrate: You must not make any comment. —Michael Saunders Moore, a son of the defendant, said that on examining his father’s car shortly after the accident he found that the tail light was broken and that the rear bumper had been dented about a foot from the end.—David Maidcr gave corroborative evidence and said that there were no marks on the body of the car.—The magistrate said that there was always difficulty in assessing the evidence in a motor collision case, particularly that of the principals. In the present case the plaintiff had told a very plain and outright story, and there was evidence to show that he was dazed when picked up. The suggestion that this was due to the appearance of the constable was too fanciful for words. The village constable had not that effect on his parishioners. The plan of the accident submitted by the constable was inconsistent with the evidence of the defendant, and it would seem that the evidence was strongly in favour of the plaintiff, whose account of the accident was strongly supported by independent evidence. Judgment would bc_ given in his favour for the amount claimed, with costs (£4). —The defendant: Is there any possibility of an appeal?—His Worship: You have no right to speak and you should know better. You may consult with your solicitor later.