MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 May 1926, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING. MOTOR COLLISION CLAIM. Judgment for plaintiffs on both claim and counter-claim was given by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., at the New Plymouth Court yesterday in the case arising out of a motor collision on the Main Waitara Road on December 26. A Tisch and Mary Mankelow claimed £l9 6s 8d from George Clark for damage caused to their car owing to alleged negligent driving by defendant. Defendant coun-ter-claimed for £33 18e damages on the grounds that Jaeob Tisch had driven negligently. The* case was heard on April 15. It was the day of the New Plymouth races, and Jacob Tisch and party were driving towards New Plymouth, when they met a ’bus coming from the opposite direction. Following the ’bus were three motor cars, among them defendant’s. The first and second ears safely passed through the narrow space between the ‘bus and plaintiff’s car, and Clark attempted to get through the same way, but collided with Tisch. Defendant’s car became entangled, and was carried on for 29 yards.

The Magistrate said lie was satisfied that plaintiff’s car did not leave its original route on the left hand edge of the° tar, as suggested by witnesses. The speed of the ’bus was reasonable —15 or 20 miles an hour —while that of plaintiff’s car was slow, but Clark was* necessarily driving faster- than the ’bus. Defendant was guilty of negligence and was responsible for the accident. Plain- ; tiff’s ear was on its correct side and proceeding at a slow pace. Judgment : was entered as stated, with costs £7 ISs. Counsel for the defendant asked for leave to appeal on law on both the claim and counter-claim, but the Magistrate refused the request, as he considered it was merely a question of fact. UNDEFENDED CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default was entered in the following cases: —Taranaki .Traders’ Agency v. E. F. Nortlicott, 17s Id (costs 13s); Arnold George v. Frank Ansley, £ll 12s 6d (eosts £2 17s); same v. Jimmy Sullivan, £l4 10s (costs £3 9s); "Victoria Insurance Co. v. >S. R. Frewin, £lO 17s Ski (costs £2 14s); E. D. Wycherley v. Leslie Blackburn, £l3 10s 8d (eosts £2 14s); Phoenix Motors -Ltd. v. Walter Smith, £4 9s (costs 25s 6d); Cape Egmont Co-op-erative Dairy Co. v. J. Awhitu, £l314s lOd (costs £3 4s): Rojj L. Parkin v. J. A. H. W. Moody, £62 7s 2d (eosts £4 Ils 64) ; Ethel Graham and Mabel Clarice Graham v. Amy Mcßeth, £2 0s 6d (costs £1 3s 6d). In a judgment summons case Pikiasu Teangi was brdere? to pay 11. Pennington £l9 2s 2d forthwith, in default 19 days’ imprisoninent. PENALTY FOR ‘LAYING ODDS.” Two charges of “laying odds” Vi breach of the Gaining Act were ago 1 brought, against Oscar Royce Ulant! The case was before the court on Ap 1, when the informations were i. missed, without prejudice, for want ol evidence. Before Ulander pleaded Mr. R. 11. Quilliam raised the point that the same charges could not be laid again. On the magistrate indicating that he would make a note of the matter a, plea of not guilty was entered under protest. Similar evidence to that given on the previous occasion was given, except that additional information was brought forward concerning a bet alleged to have been accepted front Constable Johnson, of Wellington, and this was considered sufficient bjr the magistrate to warrant a conviction on both charges.

Mr. Quilliam raised the objection-that absolutely nothing fresh had been given in evidence, but the' 1 magistrate decided to inflict a fine of £lO on each of the two charges. The costs amounted to £4 5s Cd.