VAN KILLS CHILD

Hokitika Guardian, 10 May 1929, Page 3

VAN KILLS CHILD

\I>BTVER NOT BLAMEWORTHY. /fly Telegra Pres* < Association .) U.-' •, ' ; :t . :v hAUGKLANI), May .9. • •; The death of Cfeorge Summers, aged two after being struck by a ffiotor van in Pominion- Road on February 16tb; resulted-in Hector Robert Summerville, driver of the van, being tried, in the Supreme Court to-day on ft jchnrge of negligent driving so as to cause death. The Crown ’Prosecutor said there was no suggestion of insobriety or ex-. cMflivo speed. The suggestion was that the accused was, for some r ,ea- \ ’isott, not exercising :the cafe and keepr ing 'the look-out required of him. ' Evidence was given that the .-ehild. Wad pushing a trolley about ‘the middle of the concrete, and that the van was travelling at a moderate speed, its front axlo striking the boy on the herd. The accused, in evidence, said that he was intending to stop at his own shep nearby, and he was travelling about 15 miles an hour. He was keeping a good look out, but lie did not see the child until he was practically on it. He .immediately applied the brakes, and the car skidded. Mr Justice Herdman told the jury that the case was 'one in which considerable doubt existed aud lie did not think there should be any conviction, but fin acquittal.- -He was bound to toll them that lie did not think it was ' a strong case, dr that it would be safe to convict, as there were a number of circumstances that might have happened. No one knew bow tlie child got on to the .road, and when such a matter was in doubt, there should not bo a conviction. His Honour commented on the difficulties of motorists in having to meet, emergencies, no matter how cafeftil they were, and to what strict rules they conformed. Sometimes an emergency cropped up that made it impossible to avert a tragedy. In the vicinity of schools gigns of warping to traffic were erect-, ed showing that the liability of children to rush off the footpath was recognised. Tt might he that in this case the driver had been faced with a sudden emerpenecy, and, notwithstanding tho fact that lie -had been exercising duo c»re, he could not avert a catastrophe. If they accepted that view, then there should be an acquittal. The jury immediately agreed on a verdict of “not guilty” without retiring.