THE COURTS

Western Star, 6 December 1935, Page 2

THE COURTS

SITTING AT RIVERTON. (Before Mr Freeman S.M.) —The Sawdust Trouble— I W Buchanan, sawmill proprietor, was charged with allowing sawdust to entei the Waiau river. Mr E. Rus s ell, representing tbe Southland Acclimatisation Society, said complaints had been made about the sawdust entering the stream. Defendant had been interviewed by the ranger but the nuisance continued. Defendant had previously been fined for the same offence. Other sawmill owners bad taken steps to get over the sawdust trouble. Defendant, for whom Mr Patrick appeared, gave evidence to th e , effect that the mill had been working for about twelve years. To burn th© sawdust, hd said, was a risky proposition as he was afraaid of fires. The Magistrate inflicted a fine of £lO, with court cost s 10s, solicitor’s fee £2 2s. —Motor Collision.— B. Angelo (Invercargill) proceeded against -I Dick, on a claim of £35 for damages to car over a collision on 3rd July. Mr J. A. 0. Mackenzie appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hewat for defendant. Plaintiff said the collision took plaoe’ at the intersection of Princes and Havelock streets, Riverton, when his car was struck by the lorry of defendant’s and thrown over on the grass To Mr Hewat: Plaintiff’s car was in perfect order before being damaged by the lorry, and his car was travelling at a slow pace along Havelock street when the impact took place. He was not driving. M. Angelo gave evidence that he was driving the car, which was struck at the back, and afterwards turned over on' the grass. He was travelling on the left-hand side of the road

To Mr Hewat: He was travelling at about twenty miles per hour. This was not the first accident he had been in. He had been along the road once before. The vision was obstructed by the hedges. He did not see the lorry until it was about 16 feet away. It struck the right hand side of his car. At this stage the Magistrate decided: to inspect the lorry

Jno E. Dick, son of defendant, said that he was carting gravel for the! County Council. The buffer of the truck was bent forward as the result of the collision, the front axle and shakles be. ing also bent. The brake s of the car were in good order. He was coming from the beach with a load of gravel. He would be travelling at fifteen or less miles per hour when coming to the intersection. He looked to his left and did not see anything, and then looked to his right where he noticed a car. He was more than half way across the road. The impact threw his foot brake out of action and he used the hand: brake. He could not estimate the speed of defendant’s car.

To Mr Mackenzie : His wheels were not injured. The foot brakes were satis, factory before the accident. Jas Barron, County surfaceman, said he was on the lorry with defendant when the collision occurred. The brakes were in good order. When the front wheels of the lorry were on the intersection he noticed defendant's car about sixty feet away and travelling at aj fair speed.

His Worship said that apart from the right hand rule the accident was due to the negligence of defendant. Judgment would b© given for amount of claim) £35, costs £2 4s, solicitor’s fee £4 3s.