SEQUEL TO COLLISION

Chronicle (Levin), 13 July 1946, Page 2

SEQUEL TO COLLISION

TRUCK DRIVER BEFORE COURT INTOXICATION CHARGE FAILS Charged fiirstly with being intoxicated while in charge of a motor vehicle and, secondly, with driving Without. ;due care and attencion, Ernest Bernard Marter pleaded not Mr. A; M. Goulding, S.M., in the Mr., A. M. Guoldmg, S.M., in the Otaki Court on Thursday. He was represented by Mr. C. F. Atmore. Outlinihg the facts oi the case, Constable W. Calwell said that a truck driven by defendant had run into a stationary car, which was parked by the kerb in the main street at Otaki. Peter Symonds stated that he had stopped within a few yards of the Otaki Theatre at about 7.40 p.m. at a time when the street lights were on, together with lights from the theatre. His car had been well lit up, and was well towards the side of the road, facing south. At the time he was in the driver's seat and had a passenger in the back seat, when the truck came along and struc.-i 1ns car, damaging a mud-guarcl and doing other damage. The drivor oi the truck failed to stop. Later he saw the truck parked in a side street and questioned the driver. Later he telephoned the traffic inspector, who arrived shorcly after. The defendant showed signs of drink, and was abusive; his state of intoxication was judgea by his behaviour, and they proceeded to the police station. To Mr. Atmore, witness said that 1 his car was parked near the pave- i rnent, about fifteen yards from the theatre, and there were cars on both sides of the street. Passengers of his car were just alighting when the truck struck his car. The truck came from behind, and a the time his side-lights and taillight were on. Arthur Symonds stated that he was in the car at the time of the mishap, and it was against thc kerbing. The truck failed to stop after striking the car, and he had no chance of getting the number. He later saw the driver and spoke to him, and considered that he showed signs of drink. Dr. Atmore stated that she liad examined the defendant, and had filled in a form. She indicated that he had had drink, bu not sufficient to render him unfit to drive a truck. His mental powers were not affected, and when spoken to he was normal and showed no signs of being 'abusive. Inspector Peters stated that he went to the scene of the accident, and later saw the driver of the truck. When taxed with striking the car he made no denial. . Hcconsidered him to be in a state oi intoxication judging by his manner. He questioned him and found him hostile. He accompanied thc defendant to the police station anc heard him say that he had had fiv> beers during the day. The night oi the accident was wet and cold. H-. said that Marter, by his attitude was abusive. He examined com plainant's car • and noticed th. damage done. He was present wher. Dr. Atmore arrived and heard liei say that defendant's mental powers were normal and not affected. Constable Calwell sLaled that at about 8.10 p.m., defendant we taken to the police station b\ Inspector Peters, when it was sug gested that he was under the influence of liquor. Dr. Aimore wai called and examined the defendant. Witness stated that defen dant's breath smelt of liquor. H was talkative and abusive, and adnjitted having had five beers. Ht examined the car and found it we. lighted, and noticed the damag done. He considered that there wa plenty of room to pass w'ithou striking the . car. Defendant late called and apologised for h behaviour, and said it was iv. drink that had affected him bu lack of food. The Magistrate said that afte hearing the evidence of D; Atmore he could not convict on thr intoxication charge, and it would accordingly be dismissed. However, he wished the case to proceed on the charge of driving without du' care and attention. Mr. Atmore salcl defendant had co'rne to Otaki with his wife foi the purpose of getting his children from the camp, and later had spent the day at the Otaki races He had only a limited quantity oi liquor, and was unfortunate ir striking the car. The visibility af the time of the mishap was bad while it was questionable if thc lights of the car were on. If thej were, defendant said that he had not .seen them. Defendant siated that he was an employee of the Hutt County Council. Ple had been working late the night before, and, therefore, had had little sleep. Later he had attended the races, had had little drink and had gone to r restaurant for food. He drove tr the post office, turned.. nound and was proceeding south at abouJ eight rniles per hour. He had nr recollection of striking the car which, if it had lights, he had not seen. Had he been aware that he had struck the car he would have topped, but he heard no noise. At Lhe time he was passing througt visibility was bad. but there were plenty of street lights. ' James Rachinger stated that he was with defendant all the afternoon, and that they had only had about five drinks, these being ini

small glasses. He considered there was nothing wrong with the driving capacity of the defendant, and stated that Marter was not affected by drink. The Magistrate said that liquor even in small quantities could ■ affect the judgment of drivers of motor vehicles. It appeared from the. evidence that the car had been parked well towards the kerbing, 'With the tail-light on, and had ture truck driver's -Judgment not been impaired he would have seen. it. There was no doubt that Marter had driven without due care and attention, and he would, therefore, be convicted and fined £7 10s. Court costs amounted to 12s.