MOTORIST CHARGED

Evening Star, Issue 19788, 11 February 1928, Page 12

MOTORIST CHARGED

WAS HE INTOXICATED? POLICE PROSECUTION FAILS In the Police Court yesterday, before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., Ernest Arthur Earley was charged with being intoxicated while in charge of a motor car .on the HighelifF road on December 24. Dr K. Boss said that on the night in Question, at about 7.50, he had examined the defendant, who admitted that he had had live drinks, but there were no signs of his walking unsteadily, and he was able to answer questions quite normally, being able to describe the accident rationally. Defendant was somewhat emotional, and broke down when told ho would have to appear in court. There were slight signs Unit do fendant had been drinking, hut in the condition witness saw him ho thought he would bo able to drive a car. Dr R. F. Allen said that on December 24 he was called to an accident at the corner of Higheliflf road and Silrerton street. He saw the defendant, who spoke rather volubly, his breath smelling of alcohol. From his appearance witness thought defendant had had several drinks, and lie was of opinion that, though Earley might have been able to drive a car on a quiet road, he would not have liked to trust him in an emergency. 'Witness certainly thought drink had had some effect upon the defendant, whom he did pot think was drunk.

Mr Baylee: “How did you arrive at the conclusion that lie was under the influence of liquor?” Witness said that defendant was talkative and smelt of liquor, his face being flushed. '.‘Would his face not bo flushed if he carried the injured woman up the hill?” asked counsel, witness replying that it was quite likely. To Mr Baylee: The defendant was certainly not hopelessly intoxicated, but he was slightly under the influence of liquor. The matter was adjourned till after luncheon at this stage, and on resuming Constable Meiklcjohn said lie was called to the scene of the accident, and found that a woman had been knocked down by a motor car driven by the defendant. The latter was in the tea rooms near by. Ho was noticeably under the influence of liquor. He smelt strongly of liquor, and he staggered slightly. His eyes were heavy and his speech was clear, and altogether he was in a drowsy condition. Ho admitted having three long beers at the Shiel Hill Hotel, but that was all. Defendant had added that lie was driving very slowly at the time the woman was'struck. Wheel marks showed that jhe car had been 15ft out from the Jeft-

hand side and hud skidded for about 3ft on to the tramline, where there were further skid marks for about sft. There were three other occupants ol the car. Eckhold, the owner of the car, appeared to bo quite sober; the other two had had drink. Constable Gibson was sent for and took defendant to the station. Witness asked defendant to walk across the street and back, and ho did so fairly', well, but “staggered in one step.’’ In witness’s opinion defendant was not capable of driving a car. Proceeding under cross-examination, witness said that delcndant was not drunk enough to have boon arrested in the ordinary way for drunkenness, nor would he have proceeded against an hotelkeeper had he been supplied with further drink. The drinks taken by defendant might have been shandies; he could not exactly remember this. Constable Gibson, in his evidence, said defendant appeared able to walk quite straight, though lie showed signs of drink. Defendant expressed a wish to go to the central police station to allow them there to see his condition. They proceeded there, Eckhold, sen., driving the car, and Dr Ross was sent for. Defendant had said at the station that ho had four or five shandies during the afternoon, the last three or four just prior to the accident. Mr Baylec, in addressing the court, said that there was a tendency growing up, in the matter of determining a condition of intoxication, to treat motorists differently to other people. The Magistrate replied that intoxication was n relative term, and depended upon the occupation the man might be following at tlie time. A man in certain circumstances might lake quite a lot of liquor and not be affected so far as his occupation was concerned: while another might take a comparatively small amount and be affected. It depended upon the individual also. Defendant, giving evidence, said that his party was out for a pleasure jaunt, and during the afternoon had had four “ shandies. When coming down the hill towards the tram terminus a woman stepped out to cross the road, but became confused and got in the road of witness's ear. He swung to the right but struck her with the mudguard, and after jumping out he carried her into the lea rooms, assisted by two others. She was a big and heavy woman, and witness had to walk un the hill backwards, .supporting her shoulders "William Eckhold also gave evidence. The Magistrate said he had grave doubts as to the amount of liquor said to have been consumed that day, hut in view of the absence of independent evidence the case would be dismissed.