MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18008, 19 November 1926, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. (Before Mr 11. A. Young, S.M.) DENTIST CHARGED. Alexander Thomas Burt \\ ingfield, dentist, aged 47. was charged with failing to provide his wife with adequate maintenance. An application was made for maintenance, separation and guardianship orders against him. Mr Brassington appeared for Wingfield. Chief-Detective Gibson applied for a remand, saying that defendant was on warrant issued from Dunedin. Asked if he objected to a remand. Mr Brassington said that the case' had rather special circumstances. Defendant was a qualified dentist who had been practising in Dunedin for some time. He was not doing too well in Dunfdin, and came to Christchurch to find work. Defendant told his wife that he was coming to Christchurch. He had a position in Christchurch now, and had the chance of a good position which he stood to lose if he had to go back to Dunedin. It seemed as if his wife was afraid Wingfield was leaving the country, which was not so. The Magistrate: Of course, that’s, only one side of it. Chief-Detective Gibson: We don’t know much about the man, sir. Apparently from the police reports defendant did not tell his wife he was coming to Christchurch. Mr Brassington suggested that Wingfield be given the chance of reporting at the Police Station daily. Finally the Magistrate adjourned the case until 3 p.m. to-day. The police were instructed to get into touch with Dunedin by telegraph in the meantime. (Before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M.) DISMISSED. Charges of negligent driving were preferred against two motor drivers. William James Keen and Graham Thomas, both of whom pleaded not guilty. The cases arose as the result of a collision between two motor lorries in Slater Street on October 13. Each driver maintained that the other was to blame and defendants gave evidence against each other. Mr Morgan appeared for Thomas. After hearing evidence, the Magistrate said that the whole thing depended on the evidence of the two parties. He had only the word of one man to go on. Under the circumstances the case would be dismissed. TRAFFIC BREACHES. The following were fined, with costs, for riding bicycles at night without lights:—William Down 20s. Leonard E. Kirk 10s, John Kirk ss, Alfred James Nixon ss, Cecil W. Pickett 20s, Samuel G. Switzer ss, Henry Vincent 20s, Clarence Edward Chamberlain was convicted and discharged. For riding bicycles on the footpath, the following were fined:—Herbert F Anthony 10s, Ward Duder costs only, Albert VV. Furze 10s, Elwyn Henderson 2s 6d without costs, and John Grant Mackie costs only. The following penalties were imposed on owners of cars who left their machines unlighted at night:—Walter B. Glass costs, Lawrence G. Hahn 10s, Dorothy M. Knight costs, Warwick Ladd ss, and Stanley Yeatman 20s. William Burnie was fined 20s for driving a horse and cart without a light. Alexander J. Archibald and A. J. Maples were ordered to pay costs for failing to notify change of ownership of cars.

Mary E. Barker was fined £2 for failing to obey a traffic signal, and £3 for cutting a corner. William Thomas Broad was fined £5 for cutting a corner. Morris Stanley Cliff was fined £6 for negligently driving a car, and 10s lor driving without a license. For carrying a passenger on the rear of his motor-cycle, Haydn F. M’Gillivray was fined ss. Harry Spencer was ordered to pay costs. A passenger, Minnie Ryder, was also ordered to pay costs.

TRAFFIC INSPECTOR CHARGED. For once the quarry and not the hunter, Richard George Thompson, a City Council traffic inspector, pleaded not guilty to a charge of disregarding a railway crossing keeper’s danger signal. Mr Loughnan represented Thompson. “My signal was defied by a cyclist, said George Clarence M'Xab, crossing keeper at Wilson’s Road railway crowing. The 12.10 train to Lyttelton was approaching the crossing, and witness put up the danger signal. The defendant came to the crossing, looked up and down the line and passed over in front of the train. Witness asked him why he had disregarded the signal- Defendant replied that he took the risk and rode on. He came back and witness askejl him his name. This he refused to give, but said that he was a traffic inspector for the City Council.

Mr Loughnan: Defendant is one of a. number of men who have been put

on to carry out certain duties for which they do not get generally thanked. You knew the cyclist was an inspector. Now. did you say to yourself. “ I'll hold this inspector up”?—No. Charles Henry Knowles, signalman, also gave evidence In reply to Mr Loughnan. witness said that he never “ threw' off ” at Thompson when the inspector passed the crossing each day. Suppose Mr Thompson says that you do?—Then Mr Thompson is a stranger to the truth. The driver of the engine, John R. Rich, said that he was doing about thirty miles per hour when he ap proached the crossing. He saw' the cyclist on the crossing about fifty yards away. The cyclist was narrow lv 'missed. (Proceeding.)