MARTON

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19367, 25 July 1925, Page 3

MARTON

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (From Our Own Correspondent). Before Mr R. M. Watson S.M., on Friday morning, George C. Cameron was charged with having obstructed the stationmaster at Turakina in the discharge of his duty. Stanley S. Burgess, stationmaster at Turakina, said that on .Tunc 12, Cameron, whom he knew quite well, called at the station and asked witness for his fare to Ratana. The request was refused, and witness .asked Cameron several times to leave the ticket office. Cameron went to the public counter and repeated his request for money or a free'ticket, and delayed witness in despatching the train. A railway clerk gave evidence on similar lines to that of Burgess, ('amcron was fined 20s and costs £1 .18s 2d.

Douglas Bambcr was charged with shooting game without, a license. Kir A. Lyon for defendant intimated that owing to an error the license had been delayed. The inflicted the minimum penalty, £5, and costs £2 Ifis.

Judgment for plaintiff by- defaul was given in the following cases:— Fullerton, Smith and Co. v. Herber Sullivan, £l2. costs £2 19s; Bangitike Advocate Co.. Ltd., v. A, .1. Peachey £32, costs £6 Ils; Ernest Southern v Sydney James Borck, £99 19s, costs £< 7s; Bangitikei County Council v. T. A Randolph, £lO 7s (id, costs £3; W. H R. Dick v. I. Kendrick £3 16s, costs £ 4s 6d; same v. P. E. Anslow, £4 4s costs £.l 3s 6d; Abraham and William v. R. Sharp, £3O 17s lid, costs £2 9s L. D. Carey v. J. Denison, £9 2s lid costs £2 17s 6d; Rangitikei Building Society v. R. J. Hibbard, £33 .is (id costs £4 Is 6d. A Stout was ordered to pay P. Lura jud £2 Is 2d by August 1, in defaul 3 days in Wanganui gaol. S. A. Henderson was ordered to pa; L. J. Phippen £lO ss, in default 10 day: in Wanganui gaol, the order to be sus ponded so long as debtor pays £ monthly. MOTOR COLLISION CASE. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. His Worship announced his reserve* decision in the case of Joseph Walkei v. Walter Oldfield, in which plaintifl sued for £3l 4s special damages an* £lO ge.neral damages sustained in a col lision between a motor cycle combina tion in which plaintiff was riding, ami a motor ear driven by defendant. The motor cycle was driven by John For gusson, who also sustained injuries, ami the collision occurred at the junction ol Pukepapa Road and Mill Street, Mar ton, on April 21. The defence was a total denial oi liability, defendant contending that tlrre was no negligence on his pari ami. even if there was negligence by defendant, that the real cause of th* accident was the excessive speed at which the motor cycle was travelling. . .!.• claim was reduced by £4 10s, be ’• i.: the amount received by plaintiff fr" -' a friendly society. His Worship stated that he had care fully considered the evidence ami found that, defendant in turning to his right from Mill Street into Pukepapa Road did not keep sufficiently far out on his proper side of the road. It would appear by the state of the road that in turning the corner, defendant followed the course taken by the bulk of the traffic. He was also seeking to avoid a man on a bicycle who was correctly riding on the opposite side of Pukepapa Road. In his evidence defendant said: ”1 went round the corner on the right hand side for two reasons: To avoid the bicycle and because it is my usual custom.” None of those matters. His Worship said, amounted to justification of the course seeking to avoid the bicycle he must taken by defendant. Even if he were not put. himself in the wrong so far as other traffic is concerned. The practice of cutting corners on the wrong side, His Worship said, is opposed to any commonsense view of safety. It remained Io be considered, His Worship continued, whether the cvid- • ■nre established that there was contributor'’ negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle.

In dealing with the question of speed he said: “f am faced with a common feature of motor collision cases where speed is in question—a conflict of. evidence. After summing up the evidence of the various witnesses, His Worship continued: Plaintiff estimates the speed of the motor cycle on approaching the corner at not more than 10 miles per hour. Forgu.ssnn. the driver of the motor cycle says 10 to 12 miles per hour. Both say that the speed of the motor cycle ha<l slackened to enable Fergusson to button up his coat shortly be fore reaching the corner. Defendant estimated the speed of the motor cycle at 30 to 50 miles per hour. John Docke, who was cycling on Pukcpapa Road at the time of the collision and who saw the motor cycle just before that time, estimated the speed of the motor cycle at. 30 miles per hour. While the probabilities are in my opinion that the speed of the motor cycle exceeded 15 miles per hour, 1 am not prepared to find that its speed was in the circumstances excessive. The defendant in evidence admitted stating to the police that the motor cycle was travelling at not more than an ordinary pace. As t am not prepared to find that defendant has proved either that the speed of the motor cycle was so excessive as to have been the real cause of the collision, or that the driver of the motor cycle could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the collision, I find that it has not been established that there was con fributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle. In my opinion defendant's negligence in cutting the corner was the cause of the misfortune. Defendant did not dis pute the particular items of which plaintiff made proof, and in view of this, and of the medical evidence as to plaintiff ’s condition, His Worship gave judgment for the amount ejaimed, with costs £7 10s.

Security for appeal was fixed at 12

guineas. The cdaiin by John Fergusson was ad journed for one month.