CASE DISMISSED

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 82, 4 October 1938, Page 19

CASE DISMISSED

INTOXICATION CHARGE

"With the case as it now stands, it would be highly unsafe to convict," said Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, after hearing medical evidence in a case in which Bernard William Thomson, a labourer, aged 24, was charged with, being intoxicated in charge of a motor-car on the Hutt Koad on September 20. Holding that the defendant was suffering from a toxic condition induced by deep X-ray treatment, the Magistrate dismissed the case. Mr. C. H. Arndt appeared for the defendant, and Senior-Sergeant D. J. O'Neill prosecuted. Traffic Inspector C. W. Hdfaiiblow said that he was on patrol duty on the Hutt Road at 5.45 p.m. on September 20. When he was near the Tawa Flat bridge he saw a car overtaking other cars, and followed it. When he finally overtook it and sounded the siren, the driver of the other car took no notice for twentyfive yards. He then commenced to slow up, when the two cars were travelling very slowly and parallel. Witness then pulled in, and the accused's car struck witness's car on the near mud wing, knocking it in. In conversation, the accused said that he had had several sarsaparillas, and later accused the inspector of "cutting in" on him. Witness allowed the accused to drive the car, and told Traffic Inspector Archer to follow him. When witness returned, he found Inspector Archer in the act of driving the accused to the station. Cross-examined by Mr. Arndt, witness said that he had formed the opinion that the accused had had liquor, and that during their first conversation he was holding himself in. Witness suggested that if he were allowed to get back into his car, he would relax, and that his driving would suffer. This was apparently what had happened. The defendant's driving in the first case was not such as would have warranted witness's preventing him. 1 ELEMENT OF DOUBT. Traffic Inspector A. J. Archer said that he examined the accused with the previous witness, and formed the opinion that there was an element of doubt. On instructions he followed the accused towards the city, and formed the opinion that his driving was definitely erratic. When stopped the second time, the accused was quarrelsome. Cross-examined, witness said that he would not have arrested the accused had his driving been normal after having been stopped the first time. Witness would, however, have followed him home. Dr. Griffin, who examined the, accused at the station at 6.35 p.m., gave an account of the tests applied, and of the accused's reaction to them. His opinion was that the accused was unfit to drive through the consumption of liquor. , • ; •, , , ; Cross-examined, he said that he was not aware that the accused suffered from a disease of the blood-stream necessitating deep X-ray treatment. Deep X-ray treatment was often followed by wliat was known as X-ray intoxication, coming on sometimes days afterwards. A man in that condition might be unfit to drive a motor vehicle. A police constable also gave evidence of the accused's conduct at the station. Ten bottles of beer and one of gin were found in the back of the. car. Similar evidence was given- by another constable. Dr. E. Lynch said that he * was attending the defendant, who was suffering from a serious malady of the blood. The main treatment for the disease was deep X-ray therapy. Xray treatment was administered to the defendant by witness on August 25 and 29 and September 1, 7, 9, 13, 16. and 20. A common effect was X-ray intoxication, the cause of which was not altogether known. So serious was this that at times treatment had to be suspended. It was not safe for a person to drive a car on the day of treatment, and the defendant would have been better advised to stay at home. Cross-examined, the witness said that the treatment on the day of the arrest would have been about 11.30 a.m. The intoxication resulting was. very variable, and he could not say when it would wear off. A slight amount of liquor would probably have a very adverse effect.