MOTOR FATALITY

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 50, 22 November 1919, Page 3

MOTOR FATALITY

HEARING F MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE

DRIVER COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, bci'oro Mr. W. G. Riddcll, S.M., Benct Barker Williams was arraigned ou a chargo of negligently driving a motorear so as to cause tho death of Mrs. Mabel Black, thereby committing manslaughter. Chief-Detective Boddam prosecuted and Mr. T. Neavo represented the accused. The first witness was Stanley Siddell, of Wangamii, who estimated tho speed of the taxi when the accident occurred as 15 miles an hour. The car travelled about 13 yards after striking the deceased beforo coming to a standstill. To Mr.-Neavo: Witness considered that it would be possible foT the driver of a car whose front mudguard had struck someone to prevent tho roar wheels going over the person by swerving, To do this" it .would ho necessary to keep tho car in motion. Frederick William M'Courtie, assistant motor and traffic inspector, said that on November 7, in company with tho accused, ho tested the taxi and found both brakes in perfect order. A further test was made on November 11, when the accused drove and witness checked the 6peed. Louis S- Drake, traffic inspector and motor engineer, said that he was also present with the last witness on November 11 when tho brakes wero tested. When the car was travelling at five miles-an hour both l>rake.s were applied simultaneously and it pulled up m a space of Gft. lOin.; 10 miles, 10ft.; 15 miles, 18ft.; 20 miles, 28ft.. The speed of caro where tho accident occurred was limited to .eight miles an hour across the crossing and six miles ail hour round the corner. • .. To Mr. Ncave: Witness considered that even if tho brakes had not been applied tin til after tho car had passed over the body tho ear should liavo boen pulled up easily in 13 yards.. It was difficult.to say definitely . - His Worship remarked that in OTder to answer the question satisfactorily it would 1)0 necessary for witness to know the speed at which tho car was travelling- . . George Quinlan gave evidence on the lines of his-statement mado at the inquest. ~ . . To tho Magistrate: Witness thought that tho 'streot was clear of traffic at the timo of the accident. AVilliam Evans repeated tho evidence given by him at tho inquest. In his opinion the car was travelling at la miles an hour and travelled about 40ft. before it stopped. Tho accused smelt of drink. , To Mr. Neavo: Witness said that Williams maintained that tho . deceased hesitated and then came on again. Such was not tho case—tho deceased walked straight across the road. He did not know whether tho brakes were on or not, but judging-from tho noise they,.-wero being-applied as the car pasad over deceasedWinter C. Farrer, post office _ cadet, who also gave evidence at the inquest, stated that the car was going fairly fast. When tho deceased saw tho; car coming she started to run. The right wheels of the car passed, over the_ body. Alice Barry Martin and Ivy Alice Stevens repeated tho evidence they gavo at tli© inquest. Miss Martin stated that the speed of the car attracted her attention. Sho did not .hear a horn sounded. Nana Bhana, a Hindu fruit hawker, said that tho car was travelling quickly and ho did not hear a horn sounded. Percival Walter Woods, commercial traveller, said he heard a scream and saw the' car • approaching at what he considered a dangerous speed. The car passed over deceased. IV Mr. Neavo: Witness did not think that 'tho car swerved till it was clear of tlie body. Witness was unable to say definitely tho speed (it -which the car was travelling, but it must have been going fast because it _ travelled about. 35ft. after striking tho' deceased. Ernest Georgo Featonby, plasterers labourer, who waa working on a building at tho corner of Kent Terrace.and Courtenay Place, said that he did not hcaT tho car sound a warning of its approach. Constable J. Hunt gave formal evidence and stated that decensed died on the way to tho hospital. He had taken certain measurements. The distance from where the body was lying to the spot where the accident was 6aid to have occurred was 15ft. The car had pulled up 27ft. beyond the point where the body was lying. Witness also smelt liquor on the driver. * Sergeant Lopdell read a statement made' by the accused, in which he stated that deceased had hesitated when tho car approached her. She stopped when the horn was first Bounded, then step- 1 ped forward and back again, and when the second warning was given she ran in front of the car.' The accused also stated that he was not drunk, but admitted having liad four drinks. Tho accused gave evidence on the lines of his statement made at the inquest. He repeated that he sounded his horn and tho deceased stopped but proceeded on. He again sounded his horn, and the lady went back but camo forward again. Tho horn was blown a third time and the lady again went back, but ran forward as the car was almost on her. The front right hand wheel went over the body. ! In answer to Mr. Neavo accused stated that he swerved. the car to the left, but did. not apply, tho brakes for. the Teason that the wheels might have locked and deceased would then have boen dragged. He applied tie brakes when tiio back wheels were clear of the deceased. The speed of the car coming down Kent Terrace was, he considered, fifteen miles per hour, and as ho entered the opening ho reduced, speed to 10 miles an hour. At the time of the impact the speed of the car was eight miles per hour. Ho had deceased in view for a considerable distance. If deceased bad not run the accident would have beon averted. Ho was of the opinion that the deceased saw the car. To Chief-Detectivc Boddam: The deceased was at least 30 yards away when he first saw her and ho sounded tho horn. He sounded it again when ho was within 20 yards of, deceased and again when he was within 10 yards of her. Ho had calculated that it would bo bettor for tho front wheel of the car to pa&s over the deceased than for the wheel to become locked and deceased's body to be dragged along. The accused pleaded not guilty, and was comiritted to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed in the sum of .£2OO and one surety of .£2OO.