FINED £30

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 1, Issue 19, 2 June 1939, Page 5

FINED £30

....... , tO3aCAtEI)%RI3^' DRIVER

LICENSE NOT TAKEN AWAY

William Nathan pleaded guilty ."when he appeared before Messrs (». A. Brabant and C. G. Lucas, Justices of the Peace, in the Whakatane Police Court on Wednesday to answer a charge of intoxication while in charge of a motor vehicle at Onepu •on May 23. POLICE ACCOUNT "Constable T. J. Cuinmings said ~that Nathan on that date had been carting pumice on the road near the 'Tarawera bridge. The ganger want-•-ed to get some work through that «-day and he promised the men that he would '".shout" for them. They worked well and the ganger gave them four bottles of beer and four of wine, which were drunk on the spot. On I;>cnd of the road a native fell Irom si truck preceding Nathan's. The R.M •car en route to Rotor ua saw the man on the'road and shopped to investigate. Nathan's, truck then swum* Tound the tiorner on its wrong side rand the - R.M driver & Nyrse Stttchtfn* -a claimed that the wheels -went over the man on 'the road. ■That did not sem likely but possibly the wheels straddled the man. The "truck then collided with the R.M. «cai*. STILL INTOXICATED Nathan was still intoxicated w r hen "the, police went to the scene. They , found another native on the side of road and he was very drunk. 'Nathan was ,a young married man •with three children, said Constable Cummings,.. He...was t not a bad young fellow though he had been, before the vcourt for minor offences, Mr B. S. Barry for Nathan said -that the injuries sustained by ;the man who fell off the truck could not have been received by his beiii'4 -struck by Nathan's vehicle. If this 'had happened he would have been, killed. Nathan had told him that he sweryed to a void the man on the road and thus collided slightly with -the R.M. car. : The.fact that he avoid «ed the ma'n showed that he was onlv affected,... . PLEA FOR LICENSE Mr Barry said that the responsibility for Nathan's intoxication rested with the ganger, who! was a pakeha, • .-and must have known that he ,was «doing wrong when he supplied .■ th<J ♦natives with liquor. Nathan was of •good character and his employer Mr T. Anderson spoke very highly oi. liim. He was prepared to meet a fairly stiff fine but he hoped that he .scould retain his license, the loss of which would be a great hardship to 'both Nathan and his employer, who would have difficulty in finding such ra good man. Nathan was really re. ipentant and was quite prepared to take out a prohibition order. Nathan had had only one accident in his .driving career. 'The justices said that they could "liardly agree that the intoxication not. Nathan's fa»ult. The authorities had warned all drivers that offences of this kind were very seri- . ous. The just ices took into consideration Mr Barry's plea that the man had a good record. They would not take the license away on this occabut it must be a warning to Nathan that he must not touch liquor again. He would be fined £30 ; and costs, and ordered to pay E4 -is medical expenses. He must take out : a prohibition order. ( Nathan. AyasTy,iven.?si x wecks-to pay -the sum of £34 4s, payment to be made by weekly instalments.