INQUEST VERDICT.

Hokitika Guardian, 10 September 1924, Page 1

INQUEST VERDICT.

UKATII OF lIKXIIY CF.KARI) WF.IXIXCTOX, Sept. «• Tin' iiKjiicst concerning tilt! (lentil "1 n single iiinii, Henry (Icrard. ns n result of in juries received ill II motor itr- , j.lciiL on tlit* evening of Saturday. August •Jllrtl. was resiimetl to-(lny. bcI'ore Mr I’uge. S..M. The driver of the car eon.■emeil. Waller Frederick Mnrris. \v;is rcprcselileil liv eiillllsel. Medical evitleliee showed Mint the immediate cause of dentil was meningitis follow i ug the injuries. Kvideiice was given as to the .sobriety of deceased. An electrician deposed that he dro\e a ear into Wellington on August o;!rd. about li p.m. A light-coloured car eoine in the direction ol IVtone. passed witness at about -Vi miles an hour. Further oil witness came upon the hod v of a man. Witness drove into Wellington and returned with a detective. Witness was ipiite certain when he passed the car that it was binning only one light. Similar evidence was given by another witness, a passenger in the previous witness's car. lie said that ■' liidit-eohmred ear. travelling about liftv miles an hour, dashed past towards town. The light on that ear was not too ''nm!. Ser-'oani O'Xeil! said that he examined deceased’s clothing, and lomul in his hip pocket the fragments ol a whisky bottle. Deceased’s breath did not smell ol whisky. W F. Marris. aged 21. a C ilstotns agent, said that on August L’ilrd he drove a live-seatcr ear to IVtone 1 nor to leaving he had two glasses ol .stout, ami before that, about I p.m. he had two th inks of gin. s(|inish sine! S,,H : Tlio <*;ir was emyiug <>»“* n™; 1 ,! « ht and a dimmer. The lining ol the foothrake was fairly well worn, lie «(> s within live live yards of deceased >:?- I.ov he saw him. Witness jammed on the brakes and swung the car hard to the left. Witness then seemed to Ime |,is sci J-es and ran on h>r about d<«> vards. lie turned round to go back, j.iit on account of the women in his car be went on to IVtone. Having put a oirl c.li he returned as last as he con d fortv-five to fifty miles an hour. He misjudged the distance and the place where the accident occurred. Tiie other occupants of; Marris s ear gave evidence. . Another witness said he saw Marris have two drinks in the hotel, lie was sober, but witness could tell lie had previously had liijitur. The City Council Inspector gave evident.' that the brake ol Marris s ear was absolutely of no use. I he car was in a very dilapidated state and " :l ' not lit for the road. In delivering his lillding the coroner remarked that from the evidence it. was obvious that the car was nut m very good order. Hue brake was useless. the other was good. ’1 he ear earned one headlight and one dimmer, and was bring driven mi tlie right •‘dde of the ro:ul at a reasonable, speed. Doceased was walking on the bitumen track and must have seen the car as it was approaching. There was not sufficient or satisfactory direct evidence to enable the Court to bud - an affirmative verdict that . rlr ] was guilty bi negligence. \ isiliilitv mi the bitumen trat-k was known to be not good. 'U'd even a careful driver might have d.flicultv in picking up an unlighted object' such as this man was. 1 he coroner expressed the opinion that there was a clear duty on the part of Marris to stop immediately after the acci-

dent, ii duty accordin'' to tli<‘ regulations and also I'm in the point of vietv of ordinary humanity. The timling was that death was the result of injuries received through l»e----iue knocked down hy a motor-car driven hy Walter Frederick .Marris.