MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 36, 6 November 1920, Page 9

MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE

" . 4 TAXI DRIVER ARRAIGNED THE DEATH OF ALFRED T. MAILE In the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour Mr. Justice Saimond and a jury of twelve, of whom Mr. K Batckelor was foreman, AVilliaiu Artliur Webb, a taxi-driver, of "Wellington, was - charged with the manslaughter of Alfred Talbot Maile. \ Mr, Macassey appeared for the Crown, while the prisoner was represented by Mr. A. W. Blair. For the prosecution, Mr. Macassey submitted tho case was not an ordinary one, in. that there was no Question of criminal intent in the crime charged against the accused. It was alleged that accused had driven his car negligently, the charge being brought tinder section 171 of the Crimes Act. llio Honour Mr. Justice Cooper bad in a previous ruse .'held that the driver of a motor-ear Bhould'-be held responsible for accident. and it now had to be proved whether Webb drove with care and prudence. . . . The facts of the case were that accused had been driving a motor-car along Courtenay Place, and had swerved across the road, colliding . with two men, one, Maile. being injured mortally, while the other, Barnard,, held on to the bonnet without sustaining serious injury The Crown alleged that from the time of impact to the time the car came to a standstill, a distance of 95ft. had been travelled.'. . . The brakes and mechanism of the car had been found to be in pei'fect order, the foot-brake antring strongly enough to be able to "pull up" the car within 21ft., and both hand and foot-brake being able to stop the' motor immediately. The accident had nr.nilT.rarl in ,1 LI 1

occurred in. "broad daylight, and there was not much traffic on the read at lh« , time. Several witnesses, gave evidence on behalf of the Crown, the opinion being- expressed that accused was drivinir ton , fast. , For th,c tlefence, counsel submitted that the. Crown htid not presented its case properly. Mr. Maeassey Lad not. he - contended, defined the negligence complained of on the part of the defendant Was the question to be decided, whether or not the accused was driving too fast? His Honour said that plainly the question was that accused was charged with ■ excessive speed, and with swerving and not keeping a good look-out Mr. IJlnir: That simplifies matters, Your Honout. Continuing'his address; Mr. Blair said .he would show in evidence.the speed of - the car, which could not have been i'ast had the other man been able to hold on to. the bonnet. Giving evidence, the accused Mid he was taking part in a weddine "iab" at fhn timn nf ,1,.:..:

tho time of the accident, driving • the .second car in tho procession, about a chain dividing each cor. He stated that while attempting to escape collision with . ft man and a handcart the accident occurred, that resulted in iraile's death. The two men seemed to "catch hold of each other" and stopped; then-the collision occurred, Maile being-run over. . . . Tho brakes were not working well at the time, and the car would not have stopped dead. If the motor-car had been going fast, the other man, Barnard, could'never have kept his hold on tlio bonnet. He had not seen the raim until he swerved across to avoid collision wit If the handcart A newsvendor, Robert Anderson, Raid he was deaf and had suffered from bad eyesight for several years. Ho stated that he had pushed a handcart in the vicinity of the accident, at the time, but could not_ remember seeir:g any motorcar until it was fairly close .'to him. Louis Broyh, labourer, Michael O'Connell, labourer, John Henry Goldsworthy, carrier, Edward Kerr, barman, all doposed that the automobile driven by Webb was travelling fairly fast. None of the witnesses saw the handcart.'The witness Kerr said that the motor horn had been sounded twice. Evidence as to the efficacv of the brakes on the cat was {riven by the mofor tiaffic inspector, Frederick M'Courtie, w'lio said that the regulation speed for ciossJng an intersection was eight miles, per

' hour. Witness did not know of any alteration to the brake between the timo of the accident a-nd -time of the rest which witness had given the brakes. Webb was a gocd driver w witness's estimation. C. Floyd, another witness, said tl.nt Barnard had practically stepped or jumped on .to the bonnet. The car was then not going: ten miles an hoar. PercivaP M'Leod, foreman of the motor ■works in which the accused wa< employed, said that after the accident he had found something wrong with the brakes of the car. Mr Jlacassey: Did you tell Webb of this? Witness: No. J'w Stncassey: Who did vou fell? Witness: No Maeassey: Why, then, are von here as a witness? Witness: llr. Blair called me. Continuing, witness sM<l lip liad never discussed the brakes with Webb. Mr. Blair: X made certain inquiries abmit the brakes, did I not? Witness: Yeso Evidence was given by three other witnesses, of_ whom one, a taxi-driver who had previously driven the car accused to? driving pn the day of the accident. j S brakes had been in bad order, the motor liavinj "run away at Kelbnrn on one ocna-iou.'" The case will be resumed this morning.