MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2559, 21 July 1909, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TUESDAY, JULY 21. (Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. ; One first offender, who admitted being drunk on Tuesday, was convicted and fined 10s with 2s costs, in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. - The young man who was arrested on tho Waikanao beach last week, when he was acting in'a peculiar manner, was also brought forward, having been remanded on Thursday last for medical treatment. \ * The defendant pleaded not guilty when charged with drunkenness, ■ and evidence of the man’s condition and peculiar behavior was given by Constable Dwyer. Sergeant Hutton also gave evidence that when the accused was brought to the Police Station he was wet through and smelled of drink. He thought the man was more or less mentally affected. The accused was convicted and fined 5s with 2s.costs, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment, lie was also ordered to pay £1 3s medical expenses, in default 4 days’ imprisonment. THEFT OF A STEAMER TICKET. William Brisca was charged that he did steal 10s and a steerage ticket, valued at 12s 6d, the property of John Harris. The-accused pleaded guilty. Sergeant Hutton said the accused made out he would buy the ticket from the informant, and also asked for 10s, saying he would give a sovereign in return. The accused, said he had never been in trouble before, and he was remanded until Thursday for the probation officer to report. DRIVING MOTOR CAR AT EXCESSIVE SPEED.

John Maurice Gouldsmith was charged with having driven a motor car on a public highway at an excessive rate of speed on the evening of Thursday, July lotli. Mr Bright appeared for the defendant who pleaded not guilty. Constable Dwyer said that at about 6 p.m. on the day in question he saw the defendant driving a motor car along Gladstone Road towards Makaraka. When near the firebell the motor-car collided with a cart which was going in the same direction. The impact threw two boys out of the cart and caused the horse to bolt. The cart was broken and the harness damaged. Tho motor car was also injured. When the car was stopped the brake was hard on. He did not think the car skidded, as tho road was quite dry. The car struck the cart with great forcei and the noise could have been heard some distance away. The road at the place of the accident was asphalted, and the day had been fine. There were a few people about the street'. Witness considered' the car was being driven at a speed of over 10 miles an hour. He tci;l defendant that he was driving too fast, and Gouldsmith said he was only going at a rate of not more than 10 or 15 miles an hour. Both vehicles were lighted and were on the right side of the road. The lamps on the firebell tower lighted the street fairly well. To Mr Bright: Witness was standing at the corner of Bright street at tho time and saw defendant pass. Ho was driving rapidly. If the accident had not happened he would have reported the excessive driving to Sergeant Hutton. The cart had a lamp in front of the splash board, but he could hot say if it was visible from behind. He had had no experience in driving motor cars, but judged the rate of speed by the ground covered. He thought a car travelling at 8 miles an hour would be dangerous to traffic. The accident happened well within the radius of the fire tower lights. He thought the accident would have happened just the same if the cart had had lamps visible from behind.

Ernest Corbett, grocer, said he saw the accident. In his opinion the motor car was travelling at a rate between 10 and 15 miles an hour. He could not say if the brakes were applied. _ The car was badly damaged bv the collision. The boys were thrown out of the cart. The road was fairly dry, and the locality was well lighted. The brakes on the car were on the car was stopped. He had never driven a motor car, but knew it was dangerous to drive a cart at night without lights visible from behind. The light on the cart would not he visible from behind. Leonard Friar also gave evidence that he saw the accident. The collision was attended with considerable force and the front of the car was damaged. He thought the car was travelling at a greater speed than 10 miles an hour. Mr Bright said that there was no alleged breach of. the* Borough by-laws. It was generally acknowledged that a motor car was under greater control than a horse. lie would call evidence to show that the rate of speed at which the car was travelling was not excessive.

Aston iS. Wnchsifian said he had repeatedly been driven by the defendant m his car and had always found him a most .considerate and careful driver, especially to the drivers of vehicles he had to pass on the road. He did not think the lights on the firebell tower would be of any assistance in locating an object oh the road. In his opinion the fact that the cart lvad no side lights was solely responsible for the accident. John Wilson Br’ght also gave evidence that the defendant was a careful driver.

The defendant said that when the accident happened he was driving the car at the ordinary speed, which was about 10 miles an hour. He had frequently driven at the same speed and had never had an accident. He did not see the cart until it was driven under the fire tower lights. He at once applied the brake, but the car skidded on. the wet road and struck the cart. He did not think the speed of the car was dangerous to the public. If the cai-t had been lighted from behind.,..the accident would not have happened. Malcolm' Strachan said he saw the defendant going up Gladstone Road on the night of the accident. The car was not being driven at an excessive rate of speed. The road was distinctly greasy. George Stock-, solicitor, said he also saw the defendant driving his car just previous to the time of the accident. The car was not being driven at an excessive rate of speed. . .. His Worship said ho was of opinion that the defendant did drive at an excessive rate of speed and he 'would have to inflict a penalty. The defendant would he convicted and fined £1 with costs £1 3s. CLAIM FOR WAGES. Edward Francis Grey (Mr. Coleman) sued Henry Lewis Jennings ’(Mr Kirk) for £l2, balance of wages due. A short service summons was issued by plaintiffr Mr Kirk said the information had been, laid on a short service summons because it had been alleged that the defendant was going to Auckland to act as auctioneer for Mr J. C. Dunlop.

The defendant gave evidence that he was an auctioneer carrying on business in Lowe Street. He bad intended to go-to Auckland to enter into busi-

ness arrangements with Mr Dunlop. He did not intend to leave before a fortnight had elapsed. Ho had no intention of avoiding payment' of liis just debts. To Mr Coleman: He had never said that if Auckland did not suit him he was going to clear out. He had made no preparations to leave for Auckland on July 21st., and his auction rooms were not empty. A quantity of oats had been removed, but they belonged to a client. .His Worship: The question is. Does the defendant intend to leave GisDorne? It will be a serious matter if he does. The defendant, in explanation, said that whom the oats arrived from the. South he could not pay for them and a client took delivery and stored them in Kis rooms. ‘ - Mr Kirk asked that the case bo adjourned for one week. His Worship: I think, Mr Coleman, tho defendant will not leave the district. Tho hearing of the case was then adjourned until Thursday, July 29th. NON-SUIT GRANTED. - The . case of . Charles Ludwig Hansen (Mr Bright) v. Michael Downey (Mr Sainsbury), olaim for £SO for breach' of apprenticeship, evidence in which was taken at Port Awanui and adjourned to Gisborne for legal argument, was called on. Air. Bright said that ho had looked into the points raised as to the validity of tho agreement, which

had been drawn up by laymen, and found that he could not maintain the agreement on the. face of it. He accepted a nonsuit, and costs amounting to £7 6s wero allowed against plaintiff. JUDGMENT. The following judgment was delivered in the case of Wallace Milbourne Moore (Air F. W. Nolan), v. Lawrence and Co. and W. J. P. Gaudin (Air W. L. Rees): “The plaintiff claims to recover from the defendants the sum of £l2 11s 3d for .three tons seven cwt. of potatoes at £3 15s per ton. The short facts of the case are: That the plaintiff in the month of Alarch, 1909, had a crop of potatoes, which lie offered to defendants for sale, and which they agreed to purchase. From the evidence it appears that the defendants were at the date of the purchase of the potatoes carrying on business as produce dealers, and Mr. Lawrence admits that .he has had considerable experience in potatoes, and that he was and had for some time prior to the said date resided on*tho adjoining section to where the potatoes were grown, and therefore had every opportunity of inspecting and examining them, and that he did in fact examine them on three occasions, and it is clear that the defendants did not rely on tho judgment of the seller. The goods were duly delivered to the and acceptance acknowledged by receipt, exhibit B, which was produced in evidence. A few days after the potatoes were delivered it was discovered that they were bad, and plaintiff was informed of the fact, and he went to defendants’ shop to see them, and it is contended by counsel for the defendants that a fresh contract was then entered into between the parties, but I am of opinion that it is not borne out by the evidence. I am, therefore, of opinion that defendants having examined tlie goods before purchasing and having accepted them, plaintiff is entitled to succeed in this action. Judgment accordingly for the amount claimed, with costs, £3 14s.