MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 86, 12 April 1938, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

MISCELLANEOUS CASES

BREACHES OF BY-LAWS

The following miscellaneous cases were heard betore Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., at the Wanganui Magistrate’s Court yesterday: For driving a motor-car in Victoria Avenue showing no tail light, John Archibald Bamber was tinea i'Js, with costs 10s.

On a similar charge, Wm. Blair was fined a like amount.

Charged with driving a motor-lorry at a speed above that prescribed for

that type of vehicle, Budd James Matthews was fined 30s, with costs Ils. On a similar charge, Cyril Baker was lined 3Us with costs 10s.

For travelling at an excessive speed in a restricted area, Evelyn Kemp was fined £2, with costs 10s. It was stated by tne traffic inspector laid the charge that defendant was travelling between the airport corner and the Town Bridge at 40 miles an hour.

Eric Samuel Puddle, for failing to keep to the left on the main highway near Waverley, was fined 30s, witn costs 10s.

John Duncombe Whiteman, for driving a motor-vehicle while having no current driver’s licence, was finee £l, with coovs 12s.

For leaving a car in Victoria Avenue for longer than the regulation period, Keven Earle Cuthbertson was lined 255, with costs 10s. It was stated by a city inspector that the cai was parked in the same place for over two hours, whereas the by-law limited the parking time to 15 minutes.

Charged with operating a car not equipped with a warrant of fitness, and with number plates affixed that did not belong to that vehicle, Henry Wm. Mosen was fined £1 and 10s costs on the first offence, and £2, ana costs 10s on the second. It was statea by Inspector H. Tipper that the car was in a bad condition, with worn tyres.

For exceeding a speed permitted by his heavy traffic licence, Leo Horgan was fined £2, with costs 10s.

Charged with operating a vehicle with insufficient lights, Henry Robert Parker was fined £l, with costs 10s. For riding a motor-cycle in Victoria Avenue at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour, Kevener Williams was fined £3, with costs 10s. A charge of dangerous driving was preferred against Albert Clifford Tucker. It was stated by Traffic Inspector M. J. Hartigan that defendant had been to a picnic and was returning with a number of adults ana children on board. With a limited visibility his speed had been 55 m.p.h. and in passing another vehicle he had swung on to the grass at the side of the roaa, narrowly missing a drain. It would have resulted in a serious accident had the truck struck the drain. Defendant opposed the evidence of the inspector, claiming that there was good visibility for half a mile, and that the truck he had been driving had not left the road. “This is a clear-cut issue,” said the magistrate. “Either the defendant or the inspector has committed perjury, ana I believe the evidence of the inspector.” A fine of £5, with costs Ils, was imposed. For driving at a speed which, having regard to all the circumstances oi the case, might have been dangerous to the public, lan Deans Low was fined £5, with costs 10s. Traffic Inspector D. D. Burdett stated that defendant had been trave ling at 7'j m.p.h. at one stage on the main highway near Westmere. He had rounded a corner at this pace, and the inspector had found it necessary to use his siren to warn him to stop. On a speeding charge, Onita O’Neil was fined £3, with costs 10s. It was stated by Inspector H. Tipper that he and Inspector J. Minnell followed defendant in her car along Anzac Parade and over the Dublin Street Bridge. In the city area she was travelling at 48 miles an hour, ana outside the borough the inspectors had to accelerate to 58 miles an hour to catch her.

John William Thomas Channings was charged with obtaining money from the employment fund by means of false pretences. There were three charges, the amount involved being £2 7s sd. Mr C. H. Clinkard, who appeared for accused, stated that he got confused with the dates of payment by the department and the period he did not work. The magistrate said that it was just a question whether imprisonment should not follow these cases. Accused may have been mistaken on two occasions. Th< penalties must be substantial. A fint of £3, with costs was imposed on each charge.