MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 17839, 11 October 1929, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

BOROUGH BY-LAWS

OFFENDERS BEFORE COURT.

FINES INFLICTED. A service car driver, Christopher James Craig, for failing to have a driver's license when interviewed by Traffic'' Inspector P. Courtney, was convicted and fined 10s with costs by Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court this morning. Failure to have a specially endorsed license to permit him to drive a service car, cost him a further 10s. George Foster was fined 20s, with costs 10s, for not having a driver's license. The Traffic Inspector advised that this offender iiad admitted being without a license for the previous year. Further charged with failing to give way to a vehicle or. his right, he was fined 20s, with costs 10s. Defendant had made the excuse, said the inspector, that in swerving to avoid a child lie had failed to notice the car on his right. His Worship did not consider this a legitimate excuse, as, had defendant given way as he should, he would not have had to endeavour to avoid the child.

Freeman Wilcocks, charged with failing to have a heavy traffic license was ordered to pay costs, His Worship considering that it seemed to be an ordinary case of the owner being late with the payment of fees. Further charged with failing to notify the deputy-registrar of the change of ownership of a car in his possession, he was convicted and ordered to pay costs. Evidence was led by Mr A. L. Tompkins, counsel for defendant, to show that the car was registered while liis client was in partnership with a Mr Jones, and that Jones had registered the car in his name only. The partnership had since been dissolved, the registration still being in Jones’ name. His client had taken over a hill of sale on the car, when Jones had fled in bankruptcy. The Act provided that where two persons' were interested in the ownership of a car, the registrar should be notified of this fact. Jones had notified his intention of paying off this bill of sale, and was therefore also liable for the registration of the vehicle.

His Worship considered that Wilcocks should have notified the registrar that he was the mortgagee in possession of the ear, and the. fact that Jones had registered partnership property in his own name did not free Wilcocks from legal liability. It might, however, be a mitigating circumstance, he added. It was not a position that the ordinary lay man would understand, said His Worship.