MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23001, 2 October 1936, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, October 1. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES Judgment by default was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases:— Frederick H. Haig v. Percy Powell (Mosgiel), claim £8 for goods supplied, with costs (£1 13s 6d); Haggitt, Duthie and Kinmont v. John Carlisle Beale (Kimbell), claim £ll 2s for balance of valuation fee, with costs (£2 18s); Butterfields, Ltd. v, William Paris (Port Chalmers), claim £3 17s 6d for goods supplied, with costs (£1 3s 6d). BREACHES OF AWARD The inspector of awards proceeded against Francis Albert Bolting (Mr C. B. Barrowclough), claiming £2O as penalty for a breach of the Dunedin and Oamaru Butchers' Award. —Judgment

for £l. with costs (Is), was awarded the plaintiff. Botting was further proceeded against on a charge of having failed to keep a correct record of the hours worked by and wages paid to assistants, and was fined £3 and costs (10s). JUDGMENT SUMMONS F. C. Simonsen v. W. J. Bowker, claim £4 16s on a judgment summons. —The debtor did not appear, and an order was made for immediate payment of the amount, with costs (6s), in default five days’ imprisonment. A MOTOR COLLISION His Worship delivered his reserved decision in the case in which Robert David Donaldson proceeded against Archibald William Douglass (Waikouaiti), claiming £46 3s 5d as damages arising out of a motor collision which occurred at the intersection of Hanover and Castle streets on December 19, 1935.—Mr C. Mowat appeared for the plaintiff and Mr E. J. Anderson for the defendant. —For the plaintiff it was claimed that the accident was due to negligent driving on the part of the

defendant. —The defendant denied the allegation of negligence, and maintained that the collision was due to the failure of the plaintiff to keep a lookout for traffic approaching from his right.—After traversing the evidence his Worship said he was of opinion that the defendant was travelling at a somewhat higher speed than he' should have been when approaching the intersection, but the plaintiff was the author of his own injury. It had already been pointed out that his account of the collision was an impossible one. His vision to the right was impeded by the telephone box, and it was doubtful what area of visibility existed between the box and the shop on the corner. The plaintiff was approaching an important traffic road when his particular regard should have been to any traffic from the right, and there was no other traffic to occupy his attention: yet his own account, which the court had had to reject, was that after glancing through the telephone box he did not look to his right again until on the tram rails. If he had been keeping a proper look-out and making allowance

for interference with his vision by the telephone-box he should have seen any traffic in sufficient time to obviate danger. Judgment must therefore be given for the defendant, with costs (£4 18s).