MOTORIST CHARGED

Hokitika Guardian, 22 May 1929, Page 3

MOTORIST CHARGED

WITH NEGLIGENT DRIVING. MAGISTRATE DISMISSES CASE. GREY-MOUTH, May 21. While walking in company with a riend on the right hand side of the oad leading from Wall send to Dobson .ii the late afternoon of 2nd April last, a young man named Alexander Stewart Robb, was struck by the front mudguard of a passing car allegedly driven by Ormond Alexander Wallis, sawmiller, of Greymouth, with the result that he received injuries to his spine. The police yesterday brought an action against Wallis in that he did negligently drive a motor vehicle on a road, to wit, the main highway at Dobson, on 2nd April. Sen-ior-Sergeant C. E. Roach handled the prosecution, defendant being represented by Mr J. A. Murdoch, of Hokitika.

The Magistrate stated that the suggestion made on the part of the prosecution was that defendant drove the car when in a condition of drunkenness. Whalan had*said that ho noticed Wallis stagger into the hotel at Dobson after,lie pulled up there. The evidence ; of • Wilson, Spencer, the publican at Dobson, and that of Arthur \vlio met' him on his arrival in Greymouth was that he was perfectly so|)er. It was difficult to answer why a. hoy driving cows along the road should state that he saw defendant stagger like a drunken man. It was possible that Wallis felt a little still after driving 100 miles and being in a cramped position for so long, would not walk with the alertness and so lightly as a person would who had been on his feet for some time. The evidence brought, by defendant showed that if carelessness had been the cause of the accident it was certainly not duo to drink. The question remained whether he had been carelessly driving in proceeding along the road. The evidence of the witness Glendinning said that tiie car was being driven at 20 to 25 miles per hour. Glendinning, was a coal miner, not a car driver, and it was fairly difficult to assess speed, even hv car drivers. The evidence of the defence was that'the car was travelling at between 12 and 15 miles an hour. The accident occurred on a straight road, and if the car was travelling at that speed .it could not be held to he an excessive speed. The weight or evidence showed that the speed of the car was reasonable. The question then was,—was the driver keeping an insufficient look-out. It was hard to iiiiagine that a driver would go over to his right hand side and drive into Robb. Both Robb and Glendinning said that they were on the right hand side, and there was room to pass,, there being 18 clear feet. The evidence of those two was that in this ease the car struck Robb and knocked him forward. The evidence of Wallis, Wilson and Spencer was that they did not see any man in front of the car, nor did it strike anyone. Glendinning had looked at the number of the car, and taken a note of it. “1 must hold m fact oi that.direct evidence that the fiont mudguard did strike Robb and knock him "forward, but there still remains the question as to whether it was a result of negligence. The evidence is clear that Wallis was sober, and not driving at an excessive speed,” continued" His Worship. A driver, however, had no right to swerve if it endangered passers-by. There probably wps a certain amount of negligence shown by Wallis in driving the car. He was perhaps not keeping a strict look-out. With people passing in croups there, defendant had admitted there was a danger, and for that reason he used special care. The evidence must bo taken that he was not guilty of negligence, but the accident may have been due more to an error ol judgment than gross negligence. “ There may he grounds for a civil action for damages, but the evidence is not conclusive that defendant was guilty of gross negligence, and the information will thorefore be dismissed, concluded the S.M.