OTOROHANGA COURT

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20420, 10 February 1938, Page 7

OTOROHANGA COURT

TRAFFIC BREACHES MANY FINES IMPOSED DAMAGES CLAIM ALLOWED (Special to Times.) OTOROHANGA. Wednesday. In the Otorohang-a Magistrate’s Court today, before Mr F. H. Levten, S.M.. Messrs Lear and Costley, or Otorohanga, were fined £2 10s, and a lorry driver employed by the firm was fined £1 with costs, as a result or a charge or overloading a motor-lorry with benzine which was being transported rrom Auckland to Otorohanga. A point of interest in this case was that the lorry had been hired rrom an Otorohanga carrying firm for the day's trip. For exceeding the road classification, and for exceeding the licensed load or a vehicle used by him In the cartage or metal rrom Otorohanga to a Public Works camp 12 miles north of Otorohanga. A. B. Carter, carrying contractor, of Otorohanga 'Mr Mackersey, was fined £1 10s on each charge with costs. F. Fitzgibbon. carrier, was fined £1 with costs 12s for exceeding the axle load or a heavy vehicle on the main highway on November 26 of last year, and on a second charge of exceeding the license load Fitzgibbon was convicted and fined £1 with costs 12s. On similar charges Arthur Brunet was fined fl with costs 10s, and A. D. Hall was ordered to pay costs to Negligent Driving Charges of negligent driving resulted in Fitz von Zalinsky, a car salesman residing at Cambridge, being fined £2 10s with costs 1 Os; Frederick F. Stevens, taxidriver, of Te Awamutu, being convicted and fined £1 with costs 25s and witnesses’ expenses £2 1s iOd; and Tasker L. Coyle, or Auckland, being fined £2 10s with cost 3 16s and witnesses’ expenses 10s 3d. Judgment for Plaintiff In the case in which George Holmes, hairdresser, of Otorohanga, proceeded against A. B. Carter, carrying contractor, of Otorohanga, for £ls 10s, the value of a parcel containing a machine which Holmes was returning to an Auckland firm through defendant’s motor transport service, Judgment, which had been held over, was given in favour of plaintiff for £7 15s with costs totalling 23s and solicitor’s fees £2 7s. It was alleged that the parcel had been taken to an Auckland depot of defendant’s and had been lost sight of by all parties interested. Plaintiff held that Carter was liable for the proper delivery of his parcel.