ABRUPT DISMISSAL

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Issue 2, 12 April 1940, Page 5

ABRUPT DISMISSAL

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT S PROSECUTION LORRY DRIVER CHARGED The information laid by the Transport Department against '•George Ernest Wray, in which it was alleged that he drove a lorry without due care and attention at Rotoma on August 24, 1939, was abruptly dismissed by Mr E. L. Walton, S.M, in the Magistrate's Court on Wednesday morning. One witness for the Department, and defendant had completed their -evidence and a witness for the -defence W2S under cross-ex 3.m w ination by Inspector J. H. Delves when the Magistrate broke in "with his decision and the Court colluded. Mr B. S. Barry, counsel for Wray, entered a plea of not guilty. Outlining the case, which had been adjourned from the November Court, Traffic Inspector J. H. Delves, representing the Transport Department, said that on the date to which the charge referred a man 'named Kemp was driving to Hamiltion from Wliakatane,. via Rotoma, 4nd at approximately 3 p.m. passed over the Tarawera river. Half -a mile from that point there was a pumice pit working at that time. Kemp was driving at 35 m.p.h., "whef; lie rounded a bend and saw a red flag. That was the only indication of the pit's existence. There had been a collision between Kemp's car and defendant's lorry. Insjiector Delves then went into the witness box to give evidence regarding measurements he had taken at the pumice quarry. He sa\v the flag and the distance from it to '.the quarry was 47 feet. Car Driver's Evidence. "William Henry Kemp, owner and 'driver of the car involved in the -collision, was examined by the Inspector, and said that before reaching the bend in the road which ■shielded a sight of the, red warning flag his speed was 35-40 m.p.h. On sighting the flag he had assumed that there was a slip on the road or that men were engaged on road work there and he had accordingly slackened his speed. He was prepared to stop and when he saw that the road was clear he was about to ■accelerate when he saw the front part of the truck emerging from the pit entrance. He swerved to the right but the left front mudguard of his car caught on the right •side of the lorry's front bumper. There was some damage done to his *car r particularly to the back mudguard. He had pulled up within a '••car's length. Cross-examined by Mr Barry, witness said he was in no particular hurry at'the time of the accident. He knew the road fairly well but he ihad not been over it for six months l or so prior to that date. He did not remember , saying that he thought the quarry was dormant. He had been involved in two acci- 1 'dents before but both had been on straight stretchel, where the other 'cars had been travelling on the "wrong side of the road. He had put "his brakes on slightly before the impact. The truck was barely moving and witness could have pulled up but he thought the truck was waiting for him to pass. Defendants Account. Mr Barry informed the Court that •defendant was a contractor on Public Works engagement. On the day In question the truck was loaded •and proceeded slowly out of the high-bankedVentrance. It was impossible for the driver to see the* road until the cab was out of the •quarry. Defendant was driving the truck in low gear at the time and saw a small car. The car came on and struck the lorry a glancing -blow. Defendant submitted that he took every precaution. That closed the case for the Trans port Department. Enormous Speed George Ernest Wray, ; in the box, said that on the day to which the charge referred his truck had been loaded and he had proceeded slowly out of the pit. As soon as he had a view of the road he saAv a small car apjiroaching. He stopped and the car struck his lorry. He had sounded the horn. There had never been an accident at the p't, so far as he knew. The road was flagged. To Inspector Delves, witness said Itliere was a 'Slow' notice on the / Whakatane side of the pit. Ijispec- * tor Delves expressed surprise at this

statement. Witness admitted that complainant hsul 47 feet in which to act,, had he heard the horn or seen the truck. The Inspector: You say lie was travelling at an enormous speed. What is an enormous speed? Witness: Oh, travelling pretty fast.' The Inspector: Would you call 50 miles per hour an enormous speed? Witness: Yes. The Inspector: Do you suggest he was doing that? Witness: Well, it's harcl to say; he might have neen. The Inspector: Yet he pulled up in the length of the car! The Inspector questioned whether the sound of the horn could be heard on the road with the prevailing wind blowing from the sea. Defendant said he had stopped his truck when the front was six feet out from the quarry. He had not reversed back after the Collision. Termination of Case. Roland Young, an employee at the pumice pit, said he had spread Wray"s truck and saw Wray drive slowly towards the exit. Wray sounded his horn, as was his custom, and was what witness thought to be three or four feet out from the quarry when the impact occurred. The truck remained in position and later towed Kemp's car. A horn sounded in the pit could be heard down the road. He was certain that Wray had sounded his horn. Under cross-examination witness said he was on contract* as were the others working at the pit and in answer to the Inspector's question suggesting that as the more pumice turned out, the more was earned by the quarry men and that the trucks were therefore not wasting any time, witness said he supposed that Was so. The Inspector asked witness his opinion of Wray as a driver and witness said he had ridden with defendant and considered him to be capable. The Inspector: Does he travel very fast? Witness: Not more than anybody else. The Inspector: Are you aware that he has had two convictions for speeding? The Magistrate: Information dismissed . The Court then rose.