MOTORIST ACQUITTED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20078, 26 October 1939, Page 13

MOTORIST ACQUITTED

ADMITTED HAVING DRINK FINED ON OTHER COUNT “It is nearly a borderline case and you can consider yourself very lucky that you have got of! by the thinnest skin of your teeth. I am dismissing the information against you of intoxication while in charge of a car,” said Mr. J.' H. Luxford, S.M.. yesterday afternoon in the Magistrate's Court, after having heard the evidence in the case against Alfred Rongopoi Gillman, aged 39. a labourer. On the charge of driving in a manner that might have been dangerous to the public, Mr. Luxl'ord entered a conviction, stating that Gillman was the driver oi a car on a race day when there was more traffic than usual, and had deliberately drunk various alcoholic beverages during the day, forgetting the motorists’ duty to the public. The actual dangerous driving did not continue for long, so he did not propose to cancel the accused’s license.

Gillman, who pleaded not guilty to both charges, ws acquitted on the charge of being intoxicated while driving, and convicted and lined £5 on the second charge.

The prosecution was conducted by Senior-Sergeant J: F. H. Macnamara, and Mr. A. A. Whitehead appeared for Gillman. Shock of Going to Station

Dr. R. M. Gunn said he examined the accused at the police station and concluded that he had had liquor but was then not in an unfit state to drive a car.

To Mr. Whitehead, the witness said there could be a fairly appreciable difference in the demeanour of one who had had drink by the mere fact that he was taken to a police station. Nothing could be inferred only from the fact that Gillman was inclined to be talkative in the station.

The chief inspector of the Wellington district for the Transport Department, Arthur Charles Crawford, said he saw the defendant approaching him while he was patrolling the road between the racecourse and town. The witness was forced to move over more to the left of the road to allow the accused to pass. The inspector gave chase and Gillman crossed the borough boundary at 50 m.p.h. The course of the vehicle was also erratic and the car swerved to the wrong side of the road on two occasions. When stopped Gillman got out of his car and was a little unsteady on his feet. His breath also smelt of liquor.

Disagreed With Doctor Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead, the witness said that the doctor’s examination seemed to be a short one. He was unaware that Dr. F. Kahienberg had put the accused through a severe test at the request of Gillman himself. The witness disagreed with Dr. Gunn that the accused was in a fit condition to drive.

Re-examined by Senior-Sergeant Macnamara. the witness said there were two passengers in Gillman’s car and both of them were under the influence of liquor. A second inspector of the department, Charles Pilkington, Wairoa, said he had noticed Gillman during the afternoon appeared to be intoxicated. He had brought the accused’s car to the police station and one of Gillman’s passengers had said at the station that

“if he had not acted trie goat he might have got away with it.” To Mr. Whitehead, the witness said that the shock of going to a police station made a great difference to men under the influence of liquor. Police Evidence Senior-Sergeant Macnamara said that the accused had been pointed out to him early in the afternoon, and he saw him going into the bar on several occasions. Just about the time of the last race he saw him and he was intoxicated. Later he saw him again in the police station, and considered that he was still intoxicated. Constable H. S. Milligan corroborated the evidence of the previous witness regarding the state of the accused when brought to tile station and said he had performed well during the tests of Dr. Gunn. To Mr. Whitehead the constable did not consider that the accused was badly intoxicated. Gillman was the first witness for the defence, and said he was a steady driver and seldom exceeded a speed of 25 m.p.h. He had never driven at a speed of 45 to 50 m.p.h. since he had had the vehicle. When he got out of the car the inspector’s first words were that the witness was drunk. He could not recall any breaches of the traffic regulations that he had made after leaving the course.

Cross-examined by Senior-Sergeant Macnamara, Gillman said he had had several drinks during the day, but had none after 4 p.m.

Henry Richards, a storekeeper, said thc„accused had travelled slowly for 300yds. before being stopped. A drover, Graham Lyons, said he was a passenger in the accused’s car. He admitted having had a lew drinks during the day. The speed of the car was not fast and was at no stage over 25 m.p.h.