NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 29, 28 October 1937, Page 7

NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE

Maor! on Trial Afler Car Smash

NO DEFENCE EVIDENCE

After a retirement of 20 minutes, the jury aoquitted Gerald James, a Maori of Otatara, on. a chargo of negligent driving causing death , in the Supreme OoUrt at Napier before Mr. Justice Ostler yesterday afternoon. At the conclusion of the Orown case, counsel for accused intimated that he did not propose to call evidence, ahd, after the summing-up of the case by the J udge, tli jury returned their verdict in a short tiine. Mr. H. B. Lusk prosecuted, and Mr. O. G. E. Harker appeared in defence. Joseph Frederick Oustance, a motor engineer of 27 years' experienoe, said that the left side of the ear was smaShed and the side concave for a distance of three feet. The steering gear was in good order considering the stat© of the vehicle. After an examination of the locality of the accident witness formed ' the opinion that the accident was due ' to excessive speed. The hend hefore the pole coujd he negotiated at about 50 miles an hour in perfect safety jn dry Weather, but at nothing more than 40 in wet weather, as the surface of the road was apt to be treacherous. He considered, from his examination of the truck and tte broken power pole, that the truck must have been travelling about 70 miles anhour at the time oi the accident. Brakes Mfght Have jammed. Asked by Mr. Harker if the skid marks indicated a temporary jamming of the brakes, witnesg said that they appeared as if the car was not on all four wbeels ac the tiine. This might possibly be due to a jamming of the brakes. Mr. Harker : I put it to you that it is impossible to look at a broken poie in fhe yard and assesa the speed neoesSary tq do the danage. Witness: I, did not asseps the speed exactly. I took jnto account the damage done to the power pole and also the amount of damage the truck sustained. It depends on the angle of impaot?— "Xes." And it would be possihle for tho damage to be done .by a car going from 80 to 35 miles an hourf — It is extremely doubtful. According to the evidence of Frederiok Charles Firinan, a motor engineer who examincd the vehicle, the b#akes wero in perfect condition. To cause the damage which had heen done, a speed of approximately 65 miles an hour Would be necessafy. Evidence that James had said Tareha was the driver of the vehicle was' given by Constablo E. J. Grove. Questidned at Otatara later in the morning, james had repeatedl this statement, but later adihittedi that he was the driver. In his address to the jury, Mr. Harker pointed out the possibiiity of circumstantial evidence resulting m a misconstruction of facts, There Was uo direct evidence offering, and it was necessary to serutiuise all fhe evidence most carefully. The accused, said His Honoiir in his summing-up, was a competent driver according to the evidence of the owner of the truck and his aunt, and later of Mr. Hildreth. The evidence pointed to the fact that the vehicle was being driven jvibh reasonable care and attentlen. The sole allegation of negligence made by the Crown was that James drove at an excessite speed. The evidence on this pojnt included Hildreth, who, one and one-eighth miles from the accident, saw accused driving fast, but not unduly fast; Emmett, who estimated the speed at at least 60 miles an hour, and the technioal evidence of the two experts. If his Honour were judge of the facts, while he would treat with respect the opinion that the accident was caused by excessive speed, and that the pole was smashed by a heavy blow, he would not be prepared to accept the estimate of the speed made by the two witnesses. The fact of accused' s lie to the police migSt Be taken to indicate a guilty conscience, it might be due to fear, and perhaps the jnry could ignore that and ask if it wero convinced on the other facts. The jury retired at 4.8 p.m. and returned 20 minutes later with a verdict of not guilty^