FEILDING COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVII, Issue 10, 9 December 1926, Page 8

FEILDING COURT.

TO-DAY’S CASES.

[Special to “Standard.”] FEILDING, Dec. 9.

Mr R. M. Watson, S.M., presided 'over the fortnightly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Feilding to-day. BREACHES OF PROHIBITION ORDERS. For a breach of a prohibition order William McNab was convicted and fined £2. For a similar offence Donald McGill was convicted and discharged, f UNREGISTERED FIREARM. For being in possession of an automatic pistol under conditions otherwise than as provided by sub-section 4 of section 3 of the Arms Act, James Ludoman was convicted and fined 10s and ordered to forfeit the pistol to the Crown. Mr Graham for the defendant explained that tho pistol was a souvenir from tho war and Ludeman was very desirous of retaining it. However, tho Minister for Defence had refused to allow a permit to be issued and Ludeman was quite prepared to lose the weapon. MAINTENANCE ORDER. F. A. Jenkins, whose maintenance order in respect of his wife, F. Jenkins, was £238 15s in arrears, was convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended on payment of £ls off the arrears and defendant complying with the original order of £1 per week and also paying 5s per week in reduction of the arrears. WANDERING STOCK. For allowing cattlo to wander at large ion a publio road C. Jensen, of Ashhurst, was fined 25s with costs Bs. CIVIL LIST.

Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in tho following undefended civil cases: F. C. Hogg (Mr Hill) v. C. Warn, 13s XOd, costs 15s; E. J. Wilkins (Mr Elliott) v. W. Murray, £2O 2s 6d, costs £4 Is 6d. Kingston Motors, Ltd. (Mr l’agan) v. W. P. Casey, £42 12s 7d, costs £5 14s; G. A. Fiebig (Mr Hill) v. P. R. Krivan, £B, costs £1 18s 6d; A. H. Sutlion, Ltd. (Mr Cullinane) v. C. Farrant, £9 14s sd, costs £1 10s 6d; F. L. Stephens (Mr Cullinane) v. J, O’Regan, £4 11s Bd, costs £1 17s 6d. NEGLIGENT DRIVING ALLEGED. Tho police proceeded against Horace Haycock, upholsterer, of Feilding, for alleged negligently driving a motor vehicle on Kiinbolton road. Defendant, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr Cullinano.

B. A. Baigent, who was the victim of tho collision which occurred, stated that ho was cycling down Kiinbolton road when ho was struck from behind by a car. He could not remember what happeiysd, although when tho car stopped ho was pinned under the wheels. Two cars proceeding in the same direction passed witness just before he was 'struck. He could not account for the ' accident as he was keeping a goiod' look-out for traffic at tho intersection of Denbigh street. It was a wet night and ho had an acetylene bicycle lump burning and his machine had a rod rear reflector.

In reply to Mr Cullinane, . witness said that it was raining ,at the time of tho accident and ho was riding on tho road. He was not prepared to say whether there was a cyclo track on the left side of the road from tho intersection of Denbigh street to town. It appearod to be all pavement. He always rode on tho road as tho path referred to by Mr Cullinane was dangerous owing to pedestrian traffic. He did not know what part of the car struck him. To the magistrate, witness said that thcro were two cars coming up Kiinbolton road with powerful headlights burning, and ho admitted that it might have been difficult for defendant to havo sden him. Ho slso admitted that it was difficult to see on tho butumen road at night. Constablo Roche gave evidence to the effect that when ho inspected defendant’s car he found that the right-hand headlight was turned round. Haycock told him that ho (defendant) was watching the cars in front. Both Haycock and Baigent were sober and witness knew them t(o bo cautious in every respect. The magistrate said there was no obligation for Baigent to travel on the cyclo track, for he had as much right on the road as anyone else. Counsel contended that Baigent shiould have used the cyclo track, as it was provided for cyclists. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution, and the magistrate determined the case without calling tho defence by dismissing tho information against Haycock, holding that there was not sufficient evidence to establish negligence.