MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1641, 14 May 1925, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

OTOROHANGA—WEDNESDAY.

(Before F. W. Platts, Esq., S.M.)

The monthly sitting of the Otorohanga Magistrate's Court was held yesterday, Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., presiding. RECKLESS MOTORISTS.

I C. J. Cox, of Auckland, was chargi ed with reckless driving of a motor cycle in as much that he had travelled at high speed on the wrong side of the road and collided with a motor car on the Hangatiki-Otorohanga road, which was driven by Mr J. W. Richards, of Otewa. Constable Fry described the circumstances and stated that the accused had got his leg broken and was still in hospital. His Worship decided to treat the case leniently and imposed a fine of £3 and costs 7s for dangerous driving, and £2 and costs 7s for failing to keep on his correct side. The Police v. J. A. Morton (Mr Noble). —This was a defended case in which defendant was charged with over-speeding and driving a motor car in a dangerous manner on March 13th.

Benjamin Budden gave evidence and stated he had left town driving a pair of horses on the date in question, when the defendant passed him going at an excessive speed. When over the Waipa bridge defendant passed him on the wrong, side of the road and had not given any warning of his approach. His speed was excessive and witness could not see the car's number. The driver of the car could easily have seen him 25 chains away. On another occasion witness' horses had got excited when defendant had passed. Defendant had spoken to him on the sports ground and it was thus he identified him as the driver of the car.

Cross-examined, witness said ' his horses were not over shy with motor cars. Defendant must have been going over 20 miles an hour when rounding the corner. His horses not being able to see the approach of the car were naturally frightened when the car came around the corner. J. Belcher, contractor, who had been with the former witness on the occasion named, deposed to the defendant passing Budden's wagon on the wrong side of the road and thought the car was going at an unreasonable speed. There was no reason for the car to pass on the wrong side.

Constable Fry gave evidence of receiving a complaint from Budden and that in consequence he had interviewed defendant, who owned that he had passed Budden, who had seemed scared and had shaken his fist at him. Defenant denied having been going at excessive speed, but said he would go and see Mr Budden. Defendant, giving evidence, stated that he had a small converted racing Ford machine and remembered passing Budden. He had taken the clay road because there was more room in passing. It was impossible for him to drive faster than 15 miles an hour without upsetting the car. He had no difficulty in passing Budden on the second occasion and was on his right side. Budden appeared scared and had just pulled up his horses suddenly. Witness was sure that the speed he was going was at the very most 12 miles an hour.

Charles Weather, who had been with defendant on the occasion when Budden's horses shied, stated that the speed they were going was at the most 15 miles. He thought this was reasonable.

His Worship convicted accused on the charge of passing on the wrong side and imposed a fine of £2 10s, while on the charge of dangerous driving a fine of £5 together with costs was imposed. Police v. A. C. Hammond (Mr Sharland). —As a sequel to an accident that occurred on the Te Kuiti road on March 18th charges of negligent driving and not observing the rules of the road were preferred against A. C. Hammond. . In connection wijth thjis.!, charges against one Jackson (for whom Mr Vernon appeared) of negligent driving were made and it was decided to take the two cases together.

A. G. Clow gave evidence of having been coming down an incline on the Te Kuiti road at a rate of about 5 miles an hour. At a very acute bend he was met by a car going in the other direction and on its wrong side, the consequence being he had been forced up the bank. Witness was on his correct side. Defendant, who was driving the other car, drew out but it was too late to prevent a collision. Defendant went on a few yards and then came back to make enquiries as to the condition of witness' car and said he would telephone for a motor mechanic. He had not noticed the number of the car, but it was a Buick. Had two ladies and two gentlemen in his car. A motor mechanic came out and the front axle had to be taken off and taken into Otorohanga, the car being left close into the bank. During the time the mechanic was away one of their party stood well up the road to warn other traffic. Several cars passed. A Maori came up on his correct side from Otorohanga and whilst he was there another car coming from towards Te Kuiti came up. Witness put up his hands, but this had no effect and the ca'r went on at a full pace, and crashed into witness' car. Witness had to jump out of the way. The effect of the collision was that the back of the car was damaged and witness' car (a Maxwell) was projected a full length forward from off the jacks. Other cars had passed his without bother both ways. The car that had run into witness' was driven by a man named Jackson. After the collision Jackson said witness ought to have his face smacked for standing in the road. Jackson must have been coming at from 15 to 20 miles an hour. Had asked Jackson for his name, but he didn't give it to him. Jackson, after pulling away the broken glass from his lamps, passed on towards Otorohanga. Cross-examined, witness said the accident happened about 2.30 p.m. and he got away after dark. Had left Te Kigiti aboujt 1.30 pim. Hlad come down the hill under power, but with the brakes on. The right hand back

wheel of Hammond's car struck, his car. Hammond had done all he could after the accident. Had seen Hammond about 10 or 12 yards before they collided. Had put his brakes full on. In reply to Mr Vernon: The Maori referred to was sitting in his own car when the collision by Jackson's car occurred. Several cars passed between the two cars standing on the Jackson's front spring hit witness' petrol tank and dented it. Had heard the sound of Jackson's horn. He was on guard the whole of the time. When Hammond came up the hill he must haye been too far off his proper side but made an endeavour at the bend to get to his right side, but failed to clear witness' car. W. Martin, a passenger in Clow's car, stated that Hammond was not on his right side and forced Clow up the bank. He did not think Clow was going more than five miles an hour coming down the hill. Clow put the brake on. Did not hear the name of the man who ran into them. Had remained on the scene with Clow. The mechanic took the axle away and he and Mr Clow went up the road and warned all cars that something was on the road. Jackson came along and did not stop, though he was warned by Clow, and collided with the back of Clow's car. Had not spoken to , Jackson. Plenty of cars had passed, going both ways, before Jackson came along. The Maori must have been fully six feet from Clow's car. The car from Te Kuiti (Jackson's) was full of passengers. Jackson's speed was not a very slow one. Alfred W. Tyer also gave evidence to similar effect. C. Zainey, motor engineer, gave evidence of having been called to Clow's car on the date in question, having been telephoned by Hammond. He gave particulars of the damage done. He had found Clow's car hard up on the bank and on the correct side of the road. He left the car close to the bank and there was plenty of room < for two cars to pass. Anyone com- [ ing from Te Kuiti could see the car at least two car lengths ahead. On his way back to Clow's car had met another car going at a great speed and given it plenty of room. The car must have been going at 40 miles an hour. Did not know who was driving but it Was a Hudson and hailed from Te Kuiti. Had found Clow's car moved a couple of lengths and further damage done to it. Had this collision occurred when witness was there he would probably have been killed for he would have been under the machine and unable to escape. Owing to the non-appearance of a necessary witness (a Maori) the case agiainst Jacfkson ;was adjourned on the application of Mr Vernon. Mr Shorland, in opening the defence, contended that there could be no question of his client being on the wrong side of the road, which was a narrow one and one on which every driver drove in the centre. A. C. Hammond, the defendant, gave evidence and stated he had travelled the road, which was very narrow, most carefully and sounding his horn at every bend. Had got no reply to his signals. When at a tangent to the •circle of the bend he saw a car about 18ft. away and he at once speeded up his car so as to avoid a collision. His left front wheel went sft off the metal but the crash occurred and his right rear axle was struck. In other words Clow's right front hub 'hit witness' right rear hub. He proceeded up the road to a safe place and then went back to Clow's machine. Clow could have avoided the collision by stopping. Had driven cars for 12 years and never had an accident before. In j-eply to Constable Fry witness said that the road at the scene of the accident was too narrow for two cars in his opinion. He considered that there were only Bft. of metalled road from the watertable. He was trying to get out of the way when the two cars struck. Considered Clow drove very well and he did not blame him. His Worship reserved his decision, deciding to view the scene of the accident.

ARCHITECT'S CLAIM. C. G. Monroe (architect) v. George Eassy (storekeeper) claim £l7 15s 7d. —This 'was a case which had been partly heard at Te Kuiti and was for professional services in connection with the preparation of plans and specifications for shops to be erected in Otorohanga.

Mr Vernon appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Mossman for the defendant.

Cross-examined by Mr Vernon, defendant stated that he had been advised to make it plain that the arrangement with Mr Munro should be that the plans would only be paid for if a loan ihe was trying to raise was obtainable. He and Mr Corbett were very surprised to receive Munroe's account. The plan <was forwarded to Auckland by Mr Corbett. Had spoken to Munroe in the street and explained the position from his (defendant's) point of view and he (Munroe) said things would'be all right. The loan had been refused almost immediately. Munroe had not furnished specifications,' but only a plan, and the loan, he thought, was turned down for want of them. Had not got a bill until three months afterwards.

Arthur Allen, taxi driver, of Otorohanga, gave evidence of having heard Munroe and Eassey speaking under the verandah. The conversation was heated on both sides and was about some plans. Had taken notice because the voices were raised. They seemed to come to some arrangement and .Munroe had said "Well, we'll call it quits," and shook hands. Cross-examined, witness said Eassy had asked him if he remembered any conversation on the corner about plans. This was after Eassey had' received Munroe's bill.

His Worship reviewed the evidence and said it was a case of the plaintiff's memory against that of the defendant. There was nothing in writing. The plaintiff had not sent in the specifications and the weight of evidence was in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff would be non-suited with costs against him. NOXIOUS WEEDS.

Stock Inspector (J. M. McKenzie) v. B. Carr.—This was a charge of failing to clear his section of weeds and a fine of £3 and costs was imposed. Same v. H. Isaac—This case was one in which the frontage of section

had not been cleared. The Inspector stated the work had now been done. Defendant was ordered to pay 7s costs.

Same v. D. Clarke (Mr Corbett).— The work having been done defendant was ordered to pay costs 16s.

Same y\, (Mrs Yioung.—The work having been done an order for payment of costs 7s was made. Same v. C. E. Holloway.—This was in respect to a town section which defendant stated he did not own and knew nothing about. The Inspector said someone of the same name had been paying rates on the section.

His Worship said he thought a mistake had been made and dismissed the case, but allowed witness* expenses which he thought ought to be paid by the Town Board in as much that it had not rectified matters when defendant had called attention to the mistake.

Same v. 0. R. Nicholas (Mr Patterson). —This was a section of 140 acres in the Otorohanga County which was in a very bad condition. A certain amount of work had been done but the river frontage was very bad. Mr Patterson said if the Inspector would give him time defendant would clear. The case was adjourned to allow defendant time to do the work. .Same v. C. Soloman.—This was in respect of a town section which, however, had now been cleared. Defendant was mulcted in costs 7s. Same v. Jno. Ormsby.—'Order made for costs 7s. Same v. A. L. Erl.—An order for costs 12s was made.

H. W. Smith (Inspector) v. D. S. and R. M. Cattanach (Mr Corbett). — This was a case in respect to 500 acres and a fine of £3 had already been imposed. Counsel stated that the Cattanachs had been forced to give up the farm, but had arranged to have the work done.

After hearing counsel a' fine of £7 10s and costs was imposed. Same v. Peter Verio (Mr Corbett). —Defendant pleaded that he had done some clearing, but that he had now left the property. A fine of £5 was imposed, with costs 225. Same v. C. Vincent (Mr Trapski).— This was a charge in respect to a section across the river occupied b.Y defendant who now undertook to have the work done. His Worship adjourned the case for a month to give defendant opportunity of having the work done.

CIVIL CASES

Judgment by default was given in the following cases:—W. A. Henderson v. Kate McPhee, claim £1 12s 6d; R. G. Garrett v Morgan Patu Patu, claim £5 17s 6d; I. Isaac v Geo. Turner, claim £5 13s 4; G. Eassy vH. Walker, claim £4 5s 6d; I. Isaac v H. Walker, claim £6 18s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

R. G. Garrett (Mr Trapski) v Nagin Wethall, claim £5. The defendant, who had hitherto been known as W. Bhula, stated that it was not his name and that the business he had run was another man's. He was earning a living now at Te Kuiti and got £3 per week. He was ready to pay' £2 per month off the claim.

Mr Trapski stated he thought this was a case for an order.

His Worship made an order for the payment, at the rate of £2 per month.