MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1788, 29 July 1926, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

MONTHLY SITTING AT OTOROHANGA. NEGLIGENT DRIVING. (Before Mr Orr-Walker, S.M.) The O'corohanga monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Comrt was held yesterday (Wednesday). The 'Police v. Edward Jasper. This was a case in which the ’defendant wag charged with (1) negligent driving, and (2) with driving on his wrong side of the Otorohanga-Te Kuiti road on June 25th last. Constable Fry conducted the case for the prosecution and Mr Vernon (Te Kuiti) for the defendant. Evidence was given as to a collision between a motor car driven : by aMr Moore and a motor truck driven by defendant on the Te Kuiti-Otorohanga road on the 25th June last. (His- Worship wars of opinion that Moore was on bis correct side, but Jasper was on his wrong side. There was too much negligent driving especially at bends of a narrow road, and people should be careful to keep close in on their correct side. This was not a very serious case, but doubtless the defendant was guilty of negligent driving and. he would be 'fined £1 and costs 11s. with witnesses’ expenses amounting to 20s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. , Birchell Bros. (Mr Mossman) v. E. J. Cherry, claim £ll 11s. Debtor appeared and was subjected to ’crossexamination. He was ordered to pay the amount claimed! by instalments — two of £5 and one of £1 11s. DISPUTED ACCOUNT. Geo. Eassey (Mr Trapski) v. Tipani Adam s (Mr Mossman) claim £2B 17s lOd. The defence pleaded the statute' of limitations and also repudiated any liability. Evidence was given by claimant of money having been paid by defendant on account, the last payment being mad,e in January, 1921. Had sent accounts to defendant, who had promised to See what he could l do this* milking season. Defendant denied having done business with the claimant since 1918, and owed him nothing. Had got money from the Native Land Court in 1918 and 1919 and had no reason to run up an account with the claimant. Had no knowledge of the goods charged for by Eassey. His wife (Since dead) 'had also hadi money and had no cause to abk for credit. His wifp had been a'ccosted by Eassey in Auckland in 1918 and he had abused her for not having paid his account. She had thereupon paid Eassey’s account (£l4) and stated that she would never deal with him again; nor did she, except for cash. He. owed Ealssey nothing.. His Worship said the debt claim'ed was one just over the statute of limitation 1 ;, but it had been said that 30s had been paid since. However, there was no record of this payment and it could not be proved that it had been paid. The position was owing to the plaintiff's own fault for not bringing 1 the case before he did- He would enter a non-suit, the plaintiff to pay costs.