LICENCE LOST

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 36, 13 February 1933, Page 9

LICENCE LOST

MOTORING OFFENCE

SOLICITOR CHARGED

After pleading guilty, because, as his counsel said, he realised that a small quantity of liquor had contributed, through its operation on physiea] disabilities,' to a-somewhat lessoned capacity to drive, although ho was by no means drunk in the generally accepted sense- of,the term, John Joseph MeGrath, aged 54, was fined £15 by Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., to-day on a charge of being intoxicated while in charge of a motor-car in Dixon Street on the night of February 7. Sub-Inspector Martin said that the defendant was seen by two constables in Dixon Street a little after 11 p.m. He was in his motor-ear, which was stationary at tho time, and the constables formed the opinion that he was not in a fit condition to be in charge of a car. After he had been taken to the Taranaki Street Police- Station tho defendant was seen by Dr. Elliott, who certified that he was not drunk in the ordinary sense of the word. He snielt slightly of liquor, his speech was a little thick, and he was not too steady on his.feet. In the doctor's opinion he ■was not in a fit condition to drive a motor-car. After 'the examination the doctor drove the defendant home, and tho following morning Dr. Elliott made another certificate in •which he stated that the defendant was quite free from any signs of liquor as regards his speech, conversation, and behaviour when he arrived home in Oriental Bay. Dr. Elliott said that he had examined the defendant that morning. His blood pressure was 165, which was too high. That might cause giddiness. The defendant complained of attacks of giddiness and "feeling queer," and this complaint was consistent with his physical, disability. '"About one year ago," Dr. Elliott certified further, "I operated on him for a gangrenous appendix, and he- had acute-pneumonia, at the time of the operation. He made a remarkable recovery. His state last night must be discounted to a •sufficient degree to warrant his driving a car on account of his state of health, that is to say, because of the effects of increased, blood pressure, a. tendency to giddiness, and impaired general health resulting from, a nearly fatal illness nearly a year ago. If -Tiis condition had been due to liquor alone, in my opinion he would not have made so quick a recovery."

TLEA OF GUILTY UNDER ADVICE

"It was only after a*very serious consideration of this case that I advised the defendant to plead guilty," said Mr. G. G. G. Watsoiij who appeared f&r the defendant. "This is not a case of drunkenness in the ordinary sense at all. The offence created by. statute consists of driving a car •when the faculties required for driving have been rendered less acute by causes connected with the taking of liquor. In the present case,-while Mr, McGrath, according to th© medical report, was undoubtedly not drunk, his control of his car may have been lessened by the effect of a very small quantity of liquor on certain physical disabilities to which the police medical report refers. ,

"' "Mr. McGrath is known to a wide circle, indeed* in. that he" has practised his profession in the. public eye for litany years in this city, and has entered into many public activities, he is known to a-large section of the community as in all respects a good living man, and- a good citizen, aud, in the matter of taking alcohol, an abstemious man. He is a motorist of long and Vide experience; he has driven many thousands of miles without 'an accident or breach f the law of any sort.: How,-then, does he find himself in this position? Solely as the result of the unexpected effect of a small quantity of liquor on a man of high blood pressure and suffering from the aftereffects of an illness and an operation ■which nearly proved fatal. This is clearly established by the medical certifliates on the police file."

After. - referring to the medical examination at the police station, Mr. Watson, saidt that during the short .'drive from, the station to the defendant 's home Dr. Elliott noticed that the defendant completely recovered. .The first certificate established that the defendant was. not drunk when taken to the police station, but that his capacity to drive a car was-below the riequired "standard. The second report showed that ill-health was at least a substantial canse of ths defendant's lessened capacity to driven that a very small quantity of liquor had so operated on a physical disability as to bring about the condition which had caused Dr. Elliott to give the earlier report. Had tho defendant's health been.' noimal the quantity of liquor he iad taien would have had no ill (effects whatever.

.?_ "The position in which the defendant finds himself today is solely, and only, the result of his having no reason to know beforehand that a small quantity of liquor might, under certain conditions, so operate on his disabilities as to interfere with his driving," Mr. Watson went on. "Needless to say, had he known beforehand, -^yen that.: small- quantity of. liquor >vould not have been taken, or he <jrould not'have attempted to drive." . According to a statement on the police file the defendant had had two glasses of ale eaily in~ the evening, after dinner. He had gone to a friend's home, and after spending the evening there had. had a whisky and isoda before leaving to drive home. "While driving along Dixon.street the "defendant. felt some form of attack come on. He stopped his car, and it ; was then that he came under the notice of the police. Mr. Watson, again stressed that the capacity to drive was interfered with more by his physical . disabilities, than by the small quantity •of liquor he had taken. It was *only by reason of the fact that that small i quantity of liquor (which would not have affected a man in normal health) 'did, in fact, contribute through its operation on physical disabilities to the defendant's lessened capacity for driving, that caused him to enter a plea of guilty. .

"Needless to s.ay r " concluded counsel, "there is not the slightest possi- . bility of such a thing occurring again now tha"t the defendant is aware of the possible effects, under certain conditions, of a small quantity of liquor on a man in this condition. It is not a case, I.submit, for a severe penalty. To a man in Mr. McGratli 's position, and of his character and temperament, the greatest penalty of all is having to answer a charge such as this." It had to be^recognised that this was not the ordinary case of a man intoxicated by a stupid over-indulgence in liquor, but of a man who had had the misfortune to be" affected by a small quantity of liquor unexpectedly acting detrimentally on certain physical disabilities. LICENCE CANCELLED. Without comment the Magistrate '(Mr. J. ,G. L. Hewitt) fined the defendant £15"and cancelled his driver's licence' for six months.

Mr. "Watson: I would like to be heard on the question of the licence, if your Worship pleases. The Magistrate: I can hoar you, but I can't alter that practice. Mr. Watson said that for health reasons the defendant had a week-end louse- in the country, and in order to take advantage of this it was necessary for him to be able to drive. In addition, the defendant had a large country practice and lie used the car