A DUAL CHARGE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 5, Issue 17, 16 February 1942, Page 5

A DUAL CHARGE

CAR DRIVER IN COURT

INTOXICATION AND INSULT

lie fore Messrs G. A. Brabant and J. G. Mulholland, J's.P., Frank James Gartshore, stock agent (Mr Otley) Avas charged last Wednesday with using insulting language in a public place and with being in charge of a car whilst in a state of intoxication. Pleading guilty to the former, defendant vigorously denied the more serious charge, and was backed in this respect by medical evidence, Avhieh was given after the usual tests had been taken.

Sergeant Farrell, said that as a result of a complaint made to the police regarding defendant's utterance outside an hotel, lie had proceeded Avith Constable Thomassen, lo his home, where they discovered him. sitting in the seat of his car in the garage. Defendant resented arrest and became excited and talkative. He was taken to the doctor who certified him as being a borderline case. From the police point of view his behaviour was nothing more or less than that of a intoxicated man. To -Mr Ollcy, witness admitted that he had not seen Gartshore driving the car, and also that his walk Avas steady Avhen he Avalked aAvay. Constable Thomassen gave corroboratiA'e evidence.

Thomas Morgan, Clerk of Court Lo whom the remarks had been addressed gave evidence, maintaining that defendant had every appearance tit the time, of being intoxicated. Dr A. W. Fletcher-Cole stated Lhat after his examination, he condefendant ay as in a fit condition to drive a ear. Counsel then claimed that in view of the medical evidence the case lor the police must collapse, and asked fora dismissal. The Bench however contended that there was a case, and the hearing proceeded. In evidence S. S. Powell, who was given a lift home by the defendant said that in his opinion he had driven the car in his usual efficient manner. Witness had had every confidence in riding in the car. Defendant also gave evidence detailing his movements during the day, and declaring that he had not had more than three shandies. He was not intoxicated, and had not been asleep in the car as the police alleged. He could not explain his reason for making the remark about the previous witness, but could definitely swear that it was not in the disparaging terms alleged. While deploring the fact that such cases could not have been brought before a Magistrate, the bench stated that a conviction would be entered in both instances, £5 for the use of insulting language, and .£25 for being drunk in charge. An

application for suppression "was refused.