MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26242, 28 August 1946, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, August 27 (Before Mr H. W. .Bundle, S.M.) Judgment by Default Judgment was given for the plaintiff by default in the following cases:—Hal - lenstein Bros., Ltd., v. R. McLay, £l6 3 7s and costs (£2 14s), for goods supplied; the Corporation of Dunedin v. Arthur Guyton, as administrator of the estate of the late George Guyton, of West Harbour, £1 0s 4d and costs' (12s), arrears of rates; Percy Alfred Smith v. George Carey, £8 and costs (£1 Us 6d), repayment of money obtained as a loan.

Orders for Possession On the application of\Mrs Dora McDonald (Mr G. T. Baylee), the magistrate made an order for the possession of premises at 25 Tahuna road against Mrs M. Sherriff, for whom Mr W. Ward appeared. Possession was to be surrendered on or before September 10. A similar order was made in an action by Mrs Ethel May Metcalfe (Mr R. G. Calvert) against Mrs Winifred Nicholson, who was represented by Mr W. J. Meade, for possession of premises at No. 88 St. David street. The order provided that possession should be given on or before September 24.

(Before Mr A. E. Dobbie, S.M.) Sequel to Collision

The hearing of a. claim and counterclaim for damages arising from a collision between two motor cars near Lovell's Flat on April 27, 1945, was completed with the taking of evidence for the defence. The plaintiff was A. O. Kerr, of Balclutha, for whom Mr J. T. Walter appeared, and the defendant was E. C. Bartlett, of Dunedin, who was represented by Mr A. H. Jeavons.—lt was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that he was driving his motor car out of the property of Mr H. G. Robinson at Lovell’s Flat, had turned to the left on the highway, and had brought the car almost to a stop on his correct- side of the road. The defendant’s car, which was being driven by his wife, was travelling along the highway in the same direction, and it was claimed that it was driven so negligently and unskilfully that it collided with the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff’s al'egarions comprised failure to keep a proper lookout, driving at a speed which wa; too fast in the circumstances, and failure to slow down and avoid the plaintiff s cat. A claim was made for £23 7s Or, general damages.—The counterclaim put forward by Mr Jeavons alleged that the accident was caused by the plaintiff’s failure to ascertain that the road was clear before he drove oh to it, failux-e to give warning and to keep a proper lookout, to slow down or stop to enable the defendant’s car to pass safely, or to exercise proper control before and at the time of the accident. The defendant counter-claimed for £25 16s, the cost of repairs to his motor car.—Evidence on behalf of the plaintiff had been taken at Balclutha, and at the hearing yesterday evidence was given by Mrs Bartlett and by the defendant, who was a passenger in his car.—The magistrate reserved his decision