MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12406, 26 August 1918, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

«. TO-DAY’S SITTING. CHRISTCHURCH. Mr S. E. M’Oarthy, S.M., presided at tho Magistrate’s Court to-day. RESERVED JUDGMENT. Tho Magistrate delivered reserved judgment in the case in which Albert Siptliorp (Mr Thomas) proceeded against John Cecil Tipping and Wanda Bessie Tipping (Mr Sargent), for £63 12s, moneys due under a hill of sale. 1 Tho amount claimed was not disputed, but Mr Sargent raised the point that plaintiff had no right to bring the action before tho Magistrate’s Court, because the total amount due was over £2OO, and was therefore subject for a. Supreme Court action, and that plaintiff could not legally split the amount, as he had done in this case. Tho Magistrate, after reviewing tho legal arguments at length, held that tho contention on behalf of the defendants was not tenable. Judgment was accordingly given for tbo plaintiff, with costs. Mr Sargent made an application for suspension, of judgment against one of the defendants, John Cecil Tipping, on the grounds of illness.

This defendant, in evidence, said that ho had been at tho front for three years, and had been invalided home

service' 1111 *’ °* Wolm^s reCe ived on active

ca J J c , er^^ catos were produced lo ■ o effect that defendant was suffering from severe neurasthenia, due to shell shock, and was quite unfit to do any work. J

Mf Thomas questioned the defendant as -to moneys ho had collected in connection with the business and ns to bills he had paid.

tio^n' 0, u “* S^ rc Tuscd tho applica- . Judgment for the plaintiff by default, hith costs, was given in each of tho following cases;-Cooper and Duncan, m Comn]orcial Garage Co., 7- 6 firD S n 4d i.l W M tß, i Ltd - V> W ‘ S P enCC ’ b . cl ; I Bo °^ 1 ' Macdonald and Co. Ltd. v i lw £1 178 W; same v. R Jert Muir, £22; Mary Rowley v. Mis Taylor, £5; H. Matson and Co. v. ri • / I ’?T i 1 er ’ & 51 5s Cd; Halswell Ltd. v. J. Barron, £1 8s 6d; A- b. Paterson and C 0.,. Ltd.' v. Edward George Gardiner, £6 2s 6d; Brown, Little and Co., Ltd. v. H. Arnold, £1 ds lOd, same v. W. J. Rowe, £4 18s M; Langford and Rhind y. Percival George Smith £6 15s; Elizabeth Murray v. Harold J. C. Young, £3. A COLLISION CASE. Charles James (Mr Thomas! proceeded against Herbert Samuel for £1 10s, damages which plaintiff alleged he had sustained through defendant running into him oa his motor-bicycle. Defendant conducted his own case. Mr Thomas said that tho case, had oeen brought, not so muoh for recovery of damages, as to show that motorists could not travel about tho streets of Christchurch as if they owned them. Charles James, the plaintiff, said that on May 27 he was riding,an ordinary bicycle along Colombo Street, going south on the east side. When nearly opposite the corner of Strickland and bomerfield Streets he was run into by a motor-cyclist from the rear. There ueio very few people about at the . e ’ After the collision defendant said that ho had run into plaintiff because a motor-cycle and sidecliair had prevented him getting round the corner.

i|° ,^ l6 defendant: He did not hear defendant sound his horn, although he lieard a noise of some sort. Ho did not remember swerving just before the accident, or that after the accident defendant s motor-cycle was on the tramlines.

To Mr Thomas: The real cause of the accident was that defendant was not tar enough out on the road to pass him. 1

The defendant in evidence said that before he caught up to plaintiff he sounded his horn. The noise attract-' ed plaintiffs attention, and he turned round. In doing so plaintiff swerved and ran across defendant’s track. Defendant touched the rear wheel of plaintiff’s bicycle and sent him towards tho footpath. Defendant was riding so slowly that he pulled up almost immediately.

The Magistrate said that, in his opinion, as the defendant was overtaking the plaintiff .it was his duty to keep out of plaintiff’s way. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.