ALLEGED NEGLIGENT DRIVER

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 144, 7 March 1918, Page 8

ALLEGED NEGLIGENT DRIVER

TAXI-DRIVER CHARGED

A QUESTION OF SOBRIETY

In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before' Mr. .8. E. M'Carthy, S.M., a taxi-driver named George Tullock was charged with being drunk while in charge of a motor-car in Featherston Street on March 2; that he did drive his car negligently, also that he did drive his car at a greater speed than six miles per hour while turning the corner of Whitmore and • Featherston Streets.

Inspector Marsack prosecuted, and Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for the accused.

Considerable interest attached to the case owing to the fact that a woman was knooked down byl the car driven by the accused.

John Raymond Baker, chauffeur to Mr. Robert Hannah, said on the date in question 1 about 6 p.m. he was walking along Featherston Street. At the intersection of Featherston Street and Whitmore Street he saw a woman step off tho footpath to cross the street, and when she was abou.t six yards from the kerb a motor-car approached, when the woman stood still. The car was then about ten to fifteen yards away, and was turning into Whitmore Street. In the opinion of witness tho car was travelling fifteen miles an hour. He had been driving off and on for five years, and that was his opinion of tho speed. When the woman Ba-w that the car was coming at her Bbe turned round to protect the child sho was carrying in her arms. The car struck the woman and knocked her down, and the car was brought to a stop with the woman under the crank case. There were about a dozen men present, who, lifted the car up, and witness helped the woman out. The latter was injured and the child Was bruised. Witness was of opinion that the driver of the car was not sober, and was not in a fit condition to drive. The car was travelling at about fifteen miles per hour when the accident occurred.

Cross-examined, witness stated that there were other people in the street coming itp from the Ferry Wharf, j The lady who was injured (Mrs. Etherington) was carrying a child in her arms. If sho had been carrying the child, on her left arm she coula' not have seen the car, hut if she was carrying the child on the right arm elie could have seen the car. It was not impossible for Tullock to have passed between the woman and the footpath. Constable Eossborough said that he was of the opinion that Tullock was drunk at the time of the accident. Witness later ordered Tullock to drive to the station, and he drove fairly well, though he made a bad start. His answers to questions were very muddled, and he was unsteady on his legs. If the car had been pulled up in four or six feet,, as had been stated, Tullock must have been driving very slowly. ,

Constable Cosgrove, who was on the scene after the accident occurred, spoke to tho accused and asked him to point out the spot where the accident happened. The spot indicated was about nine feet from the kerb. Tho man had heon drinking, and admitted to witness that he had had some drink. Witness had no doubt about tho mau being drunk. Constable Harris, who was in charge of the watchhouso at Lambton Station when the accused was brought in, said that tho man was drunk.

This closed the ense for the prosecution.

Mr. M'Grath, in opening the case for the defence, quoted a judgment of the Chief Justice, in which the question of when a man was drunk was involved, and the Judge said that the question to be was whether the man in chargo of the vehicle was in such a state of alcoholism as not to be able to manage his vehicle. Tho point to he decided in the prosent case was what was tho condition of defendant prior to the happening of the accidont. Ho proposed to call evidenco to show tho condition of accused, and he would prove that the injured woman was wholly and entirely to blame for the accident.

Esther Carr said that on the day in question she. and her sister-in-law woro returning from the Ferry Wharf. She saw the woman who was injured. She appeared to be hurrying across the corner to catch a tramcar. She had only got a few paces on to the road when a motor-car camo slowly around the corner, and presently the lady was knocked over. Her sister-in-law, Mrs! Kline, commented ou the wonderful alertness of the driver. Witness thought the lady was absent-minded. 6ho wag Mfc carrying the child. Agnes Kline corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Witness did not think the driver was to blame in any;way, and sbo was sorry to say that in. her opinion tho lady was at fault.

The accused, Geor§e i Tullock, 6aicl that he had been driving for about five years, and for the past twelve months in the city. On the day in question he had about four or five' drinks, the last drink about 2 p.m., or about four hours before the accident. He was travelling up Featherston Street at about eight or nine miles per hour. As soon as he saw the lady in front of the car he jammed on the brakes. He had previously sounded the horn, lie pulled up the car in six feet. The woman was knocked over and was lying under the front axle. Nothing that he could have done would have prevented the accident. His car was very easily steered, and the brakes Were in first-class condition. He offered i-o take the injured woman to the hospital.

In cross-examination he admitted that he had two flasks of whisky in his car, which liquor was placed there by. a friend of his for delivery to another person. He also had a glass in his car, which he used on that day for drinking water. He was quite sober at the time of the accident.

John Waters, a cab-driver, who saw tlio accused at the statiou, stated the man was perfectly sober, and drove away with some passengers at about twelve miles an hour.

Samuel Harland, motor expert, formerly in the employ of the Post and Telegraph Department in charge of the motor-cars, said that he was walking from Lambton Station towards the scene of the accident and saw Tullock's car in front of him. It was travelling at about six or eight miles an hour. ■ He saw the car stop suddenly. He did not see the accident, but he arrived on the scene later. He drove with ,the accused to the police station, and in his opinion Tullock drove tho car excellently.

Horace Munt, ohef, said he saw the accused at the Lambtob Station. He was not working that day. Tullock had no liquor while witness waß with him. Witness was in the car with Tullock when the accident occurred, and the man wan perfectly sober. The car waß travelling at a slow speed. Previously to getting to the corner the horn was sounded, and when the woman was seen stepping off the footpath tho horn was sounded again, and the car was slowed down. Tullock could not have dono anything to avoid the accident. After reviewing the_ evidence at some length, His Worship said he was satisfied that the defendant at the time of the accident was drunk, and did not have his car under control. As

to exceeding the speed limit, that information would be dismissed. On the charge of being drunk the defendant would bo fined £5 and costs, and tho charge of negligent driving would be withdrawn. Security for appeal was fixed at £15.