"NO DIRECT EVIDENCE."

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 222, 19 September 1929, Page 12

"NO DIRECT EVIDENCE."

INTOXICATION CHARGE DISMISSED. CONVICTION FOR NEGLIGENT DRIVING. . Evidence of a conflicting nature was given at the Pukekoho Court yesterday in a case in which C. J. Henson, of : Auckland, was charged with being in a 1 state of intoxication when in charge of ! a motor car, and with negligent driving. Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., was on the Bench. 1 Percival Miles, of To Kuiti, stated 1 that _ when on his way home in the 1 vicinity of Te Kauwhata one evening he observed defendant's car approaching at a great speed, and, to enable it to pass safely, he drove his car off the bitumen. Defendant's car struck wit- i ness' on the off front wheel and the rear portion, almost ripping off . the r mudguard, damaging the body and bending the rear axle and housing. The approaching car, after the collision, continued on for a short distance and went c over a bank. Witness, after' inspecting his car, went along to the driver of the car. He alleged that Henson was \ intoxicated, his voice was thick; he • staggered when he,got out of the car 1 and generally ho appeared to be in a 1 dazed condition. ! The inspector for the Main Highways Board, Mr. E. H. Barrett, who was on the scene very shortly after the impact, Baid the two cars were about sixty feet apart. Henson had sobered up a bit by the time he reached Mercer. Evidence was given by several witnesses who were occupants of Miles' car to the effect that defendant had had 1 some drink. f Witnesses for the defence stated that Henson's 'condition was quito normal, E while Constable C. B. Tuck, of Mercer, i said Henson was talkative, but he would not at that time have prosecuted him 1 for being intoxicated. Defendant denied ho was intoxicated, j but admitted having a couple of drinks * at about 5.30 p.m. After leaving Rangi- 1 riri his engine developed trouble and he 4 rectified the fault and proceeded on lijs journey. When about to pass Miles'car c his vehicle swerved and bumped into it. 'i The magistrate said there was no t direct evidence that defendant was in- 1 toxicated and the charge was dismissed, i On the charge of negligent driving a conviction was entered and Henson was 1 ordered to pay costs amounting to £7 10/4. He considered defendant had f either grossly under-estimated the distance to Miles' car or had failed to keep t a proper look out. f