APPEAL DISMISSED

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 62, 14 March 1934, Page 7

APPEAL DISMISSED

LICENCE [RESTORED

NAVAL. OFFICER'S OFFENCE

(By Telegraph—Press -Association.) . BLENHEIM, March 13. The Supreme Court today heard an. appeal by Sub-Lieutenant Home ■B. A. Kidston, of the New Zealand Divisioa of the Royal ISfavy, against his conviction by a for dangerous driving, and the sentence disqualifying him from holding a driving licence for two years: Mr. W. Perry, of Wellington, ajK peared for the appellant, and Mr. W. Tv Churchward, of Blenheim, for the respondent. > •' ' . The appellant gave evidence, attributing the. mishap to skids due.to the gravelled road surface and the fact that the tread of the tires was worn. Ho. declared that the speed was not excessive, being 45 miles per. hour, but the car was ■ a super-charged sports model, and the noise of the engine gave the impression that it was travelling at a greater speed than'was. really thfl case." He said he had driven similar cars since he was 16 years old, and had never had a mishap. He was one o£ 65 drivers out of 130 who had completed an eight days' alpine trial on the Continent. He had. driven thousands of miles in. England, on the Continent, in India, and Ceylon, and in all sorts of conditions. His only conviction had been in regard to a :minor/offence connected with Ughting ii' London.' CAPABLE OF 110 M.P.H. Eeplying to Mr. Justice Seed, Kidston said that the car was capable of doing 110 miles, an. hour, and the engine developed over '200 horse-power.,' He defined the difference between racing and sports cars by stating that racing cars were specially built to order for racing" purposes, whereas a sports car was a catalogue car which could be bought by any member of the:public. Asked why he was"'unaware of the worn state of the tire treads, he said he did not even get out of- the car to look when it went into the first ditch, but drove out under.his own power; but on .the second occasion when he had to leave the car he noticed the gravelly condition of the road and the state of the treads. It was his .first experience of South Island roads. :. ;; Expert evidence as to skid effects-wa» given by Ttfelson mechanics. -: ' '.> .> THE DECISION. • ~ "I think there is no question that the appellant was driving his car in a manner which, having regard to the circumstances, might have been dangerous^to■•:the public,'' said the Judge decision.. "However, I think. ia/reduction in penalty;.can -be njadej.and'.propose, not without ;hesitation,;/.tp;.withdraw the embargo upon his holding: alicence to drive." .1 think jn ;.the^circumstances it was an excessive {penalty- to inflict, but I would adyise>or? at/least draw Kidston's atten.tion^tpjthe'"f act that he has now 'three convictions 5 in. connection with driving to,^heydanger.':of the public or driving at as"; excessive speed. '■I : i '-'ii-very? strongly advise', him," the Judge continued, "to scrap this car and take an ordinary touring car in the future, forswith a car of this sort the temptation mo doubt is to let.ier-out when he thinks the road is clear. ■ Oa this occasion, although the ■■road/ appeared to be;clear, he managed.'to' put, the car twice into a ditch.' It seems to me just as likely as not for him to have landed up against another car." The appeal was dismissed with costs, £10 10s, disbursements, and. witnesses' expenses against the appellant, but that portioii of the penalty, prohibiting - him froriijl^blding a driver's licence was revokedi.7 . -