MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16448, 29 May 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

BY-LAW CASES,

A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held this morning before Messrs. C. E. Bellringer and H. R. Cattley, J.P.’s.

For allowing horses to on the county roads, James O’Mallemwas fined 10s and costs, £llßs lOd; Samuel Joseph Clothier, similarly charged, was fined 1 ss, costs 17s 6d; and F. C. Anstis, 5s and costs 2os -6d. -

Mr. G. Pascoe (truancy inspector) proceeded against Ernest George, on six informations, for failing to send his son John George to the New Plymouth Convent School.—Fined 10s and 7s costs.

s Reginald Edgcombe pleaded guilty to riding a motor bicycle on the wrong side of Devon Street and exceeding the speed limit of 12 miles an hour.—Fined 5s and costs on the first charge and 10s and costs 7s on the second charge. The Inspector of Noxious Weeds (Mr. P. Barry) proceeded against Stephen Avann for failing to clear blackberry and gorso from his property. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The inspector deposed that defendant had been frequently warned qnd had failed to have the work carried'■'out, in fact, he had boasted that he would not do it. During the war the Act had not been strictly enforced, and the defendant had taken every advantage of the temporary leniency. About a chain of clearing had been done, but no attempt had been made to complete the work. Defendant stated that he had employed a man to do the work, but he had left without his (defendant’s) knowledge. He had a man engaged on the work at the present time.—Defendant was fined 10s and 7s costs. Frank Baker was proceeded against by the Inspector of Apiaries (Mr. F. A. Jacobsen) for failing to transfer his bees from box hives to frame hives. There was no appearance of defendant.

The inspector stated that the apiary industry in this district was steadily increasing. The use of box hives made it difficult and almost imposisble to detect disease in the hives, and ifr was most unfair to other apiarists who endeavoured to keep then- apiaries free from disease. Ho asked, that a substantial fine be imposed. 1 > Defendant was fined 40s and costs 7s.

The police proceeded against Gus Ben, taxi driver, for having on April 24 permitted the lights on the car to be of such a dazzling nature as to affect the vision of persons approaching from the opposite direction. Mr. P. Fitzherbort appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Constable W roblenski deposed that on the night in question ho was riding along the Main South Road on horseback. Ho saw a car approaching, and even at a considerable distance from him the lights were so strong that they dazzled his vision. Ho pulled bis horse to the side of the road, but even then he had difficulty in making sure of the position of the ear. When about SO yards from him the driver dimmed his lights. When witness came alongside the car it pulled up, and he. said to the driver that he had very strong lights, which he admitted he had. Mr. Fitzherbert submitted that the case must fail, as the Act read: “In providing such light care must be taken that the light exhibited shall not he of such dazzling brilliancy that it will affect the vision of drivers of vehicles approaching from the opposite direction.” The Act said nothing about a rider, and the constable was riding bn horseback. That being the case the prosecution must fail.

Counsel’s view was upheld by the Bench, and the case dismissed.