MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23321, 13 October 1937, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, October 13 (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, . S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES Judgment by default was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases: —Dunedin Printing Company v. Adam Blackwood, claim £8 13s 3d, I for goods supplied, with costs (£ 2 0s 6d); Ethel E Milnes v Fergus Mac Allan Watt, claim £1 Bs. balance owing under agreement, with i costs (£1 9s); Peninsula County; Council v. John Henry Williams ; (Tomahawk), claim £lO 4s, for rates due, with costs (12s); Donald Stuart,Ltd., v. Arthur Henery Thomas (Otautau), claim 17s 6d, for goods supplied, with costs (8s); Reddells, Ltd., v. William Webb (Cromwell), claim £ 1 12s 6d. for goods supplied, with costs (10s) JUDGMENT SUMMONS Napier Motors. Ltd., v. James Thompson, claim £9 2s on a judgment summons. —The debtor did not appear, and an order was made for immediate oayment of the amount, with costs (12s). in default nine days’ imprisonment. CLAIM FOR POSSESSION Robert Westrupp proceeded against Percy James Cuff, claiming possession of a tenement in Fingall already in evidence. The 24 present settled down to badge work in patrol corners. Nine boys were successful in passing Kim’s game. Mr Stafford took second class boys for signalling, while the remainder took tenderfoot under Scouter. A welcome visitor was D.S.M. MTndoe. OPOHO A largely-growing pack is In the Opoho jungle. After renewing the promise and law, the sixers took some knot work. While squatting round the circle Cubs listened to the full meaning of the Cub salute. Six new members have invaded the jungle, which will necessitate forming another group of six. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments have been sanctioned by the Dominion commissioner:—E. Moss and J. Didham as A.C.M.’s at North Dunedin; E, Bartlett as CM at Ocean Beach; J. Hunter as S.M. at Ocean Beach R Glasson as S.M. at Roslyn.

street, South Dunedin, and arrears of rent amounting to £l3 15s.—Mr A. G. Neill appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr G. A. Grieve for the defendant. —After evidence had been heard the magistrate said that in all such cases hardship was the governing factor, and in the present claim the hardship appeared to be all on the side of the tenant. The. matter had been complicated by the landlord, who had arranged with the defendant that he might occupy the premises rent free until he got another place This he had been unable to do. While he was in work the defendant had paid his rent regularly. There had been no refusal to pay. nor had there been any wrongful application of such money as he had had. In the circumstances, the court would not be justified in making an order for possession under the provisions of the Fair Rents Act. Judgment for the amount of rent due would, however, be entered up. with costs (£J Is). CLAIM BY CYCLIST Hazel Ballantyne, an infant, proceeded through her next friend, Arthur Ballantyne, against Ruth Nisbet. claiming £6B 13s 6d as damages arising out of a collision between the plaintiff’s bicycle and a motoi car owned and driven by the defendant. —Mr G V. Murdoch appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr E. J. Anderson for the defendant.— Outlining the claim, Mr Murdoch said that the plaintiff, who was an apprentice to the dressmaking trade, was cycling along Cumberland street on the afternoon of April 11, and while crossing the intersection of Union and Cumberland street a car driven by the defendant down Union street in an easterly direction ollided with the plaintiffs cycle. It wa* alleged that the collision was due to the negligence of the defendant. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff was thrown from her bicycle and suffered i severe personal injury, which had incapacitated her from following her employment and fulfilling the terms of her apprenticeship contract. The plaintiff therefore claimed £lB 3s 6d as special and £SO as general damages.—The plaintiff in evidence, stated that when she reached the intersection she first saw the defendant’s car, which seemed to be about 15 yards from the corner. Thinking that she had ample time to get across the intersection, she continued on, but the car did not stop. She applied her brakes, but her cycle struck the front mudguard of the car, and she was thrown off the machine. The injuries she received resulted in her being set back two months in her apprenticeship.—

Cross-examined by Mr Anderson, witness stated that she was on the intersection first. That was why she did hot stop. The car was travelling fairly fast.—Evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was tendered by Lily May Morris, who was riding behind her when the accident occurred, and by Stewart Charles Watson, w;ho gave it as his opinion that the plaintiff was on the intersection before the car reached it.—Mr Andersoh applied for a nonsuit, emphasising that the evidence given for the plaintiff had been contradictory. It appeared, moreover, to be a clear case where a cyclist was required to give way to a car approaching from the right, and from it emerged the fact that the plaintiff was the author of her own wrong.—The magistrate agreed that the evidence was open to criticism, but stated that, while the case was not strong, the court would hardly be justified in nonsuiting the plaintiff.—The defendant in evidence said that down Union street her speed was about 25 miles an hour, which she reduced to 15 miles as she came on to the intersection. She was on the intersection first, and when she was three-parts of the way across she heard a crash. On getting out of the car she asked the plaintiff if she had no control over hei bicycle, to which the plaintiff replied that she j had not. The cycle struck the car I near the rear, and the impact took 1 place only a short distance out from the corner of the intersection.—-His , Worship said that obviously the ! ment of speeding was ruled out. It I seemed that the truth of the matter was that the plaintiff was riding more or less blindly and not keeping i a good look-out, otherwise she I would have seen the car. Neverthe- : less, both parties had not taken the I due care that they should have, and ! the negligence was contemporaneous Judgment must therefore be awarded the defendant.