Failed To Keep To Left Of Road

Chronicle (Levin), 9 July 1948, Page 2

Failed To Keep To Left Of Road

A charge of 'failing to keep liis vehicle far to the left as was possible was preferred against Gerald; Lancaster, of Wellington, in the Magistrate's Court, Otaki, yesterday, before Messrs. H. B. Edhouse and F. H. .Critchley, J.P's- Lancaster, who conducted his own case, pieaded not guilty. Traflic Inspector R. B. Doggett, of Paekakariki, said that whiie on patrol near Paraparaumu he had nbticed a vehicle driving in a very erratic manner.: His attention had been drawn to it by another inspector, who relayed the advice over his radio. He had followed the car for friore than a mil.e, and had noticed that it yeered fro.m the left to the right hand side. of- the road.1 Near McKay's crossing at Paekakariki, he had st'opped the car and asked defPndant for an explanation of his actions. Lancaster had explained tfiat the lights of: a car behind him had been reflected in his rear vision riiirror, and liis driving- was affected. Or oss - examining , Lancaster asked Inspector Doggett if he had not been f ollowing him for something like ten miles. Inspector Doggett dertied this. ' Lancaster -said that he had not known whether he was the victim of a hold-up or not when the inspector had asked him to get out Pf -the car: He maintained that it. was most unfair to prosecute when he had. been dazzled by the lights of a f ollowing car. He had been priding himself on his driving at ttie time. . t i . Under oath, Lancaster reiterated i the preceding evidence. He explain-i-ed that he had attended the court because he felt it was a matter of principle. He admitted that he might. haVe flriven over the white ,line in an endeavour to get away from the glare of the f ollowing beadlights. . \ Asked by the Bench whether the ihspector's car had followed him at la distance of 12' yards, witness 1 replied that it had. .Inspector Doggett; Would you swe.ar on oath that it was the Inspector's car 'which had followed yo,u from Otaki — No. Contmuing, Lancaster said that the inspector had declined an invitation to sit in his car to...see the effect of the headlights in the rear mirror. j . :calied by Lancaster as a witness, "Mrs. Geraldine Russell, of Wellington, ,said that she was the owner of .the .car involved, but that she did not hold a xiriver's licence. She had 'beeii a passpnger. in the car and had particularly noted that a car i had been •folJpwing their vehicle all i the way from Otaki. The lights had | been a "golden blaze" in the rear [Vision mirror. If Lancaster had [been dfiving in an erratic manner, fthe inspector shoUld have given him • a" warning instead of f ollowing for more than a mile. She contended that tflis fact created a t danger on •flis part. Defen'dant had slowed ;down and pulled into the side, but the following car had not passed. j'. "We are satisfied that defendant did hot keep as far to the left as he might have done. We will, there - fore, enter a conviction and fine him £1," commented Mr. Critchley. Costs were 10s.