MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 19 August 1932, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

j CHARGES AGAINST MOTORIST,

magistrate dismisses cases

~i At the Court yesterday afternoon, Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., presided- - ; ' 4 'W ■ j J. J. Mclntosh; jupr.- (Mr. Murdoch) was charged with negligent driving, arid ■with being in • charge <rf a car while in a, state of intoxication. ' ■'■,/. . “ , Counsel - pleaded not guilty... ■- " : - Constable Randall said, that in the - early hours of the' morning of August .1, he saw a damaged car ip Sewell Street,: ~ 'while a petrol bowser was knocked / over lying across the footpath, ‘haying been struck by the car which was con* siderably damaged. The • car tracks showed that the car had swerved and travelled for 42 feet after striking the pump. He was Accompanied by Mr AKing at the time. Defendant arrived, and witness asked who was driving. “It’s none of your damn business,” he replied. Witness said that -v defendant who smelled of liquor, declined to give , uny 1 Btatemdnt. • .Defendant v was not. ; what one'' -would' call dtunk, ' although , he was-riot in. his normal condition. : . Alexander Muir King, - telephone ex- ■ change clerk,/ deposed that he had jri s t ; come off duty and',; with the previous witness came upon the damaged car in Sewell Street. He corroborated the ? previous evidence. i .Both witnesses were cross-examined by icounsel. ".to." '• < - .• ' Victor Emmanuel Bergamini, a motor f jengineer,- detailed the damage done to j the motor car. Cross-examined, witness said .the dam-' age was such that the car must have ; received a severe jolt' t Lawrence Henry Evans, motor mechanic, isaid he saw the car next nriortt* irig. He said that if the' car, doing’ , .15 miles per hour,' were * from ’ Weld Street Into Sewell Street, and a tyre burst, the car could not help missing the bowser which ' was top heavy, and whose ’base construction was poor. He w;6.uld not «ay that this would jwrive negligent driving. Upon examination he discovered a puncture in the tube of one rear wheel, and two cuts There the rim had gone through. Witness disagreed with the previous witness on one or two points. The fact of the • damage to the car and the bowser did not suggest negligent driving, Harry Wells deposed that he was at a private party on the .evening of the accident. Be was one of the last to see defendant who was perfectly‘sober; The “empties" found in the car after the accident had l been there ‘since th£ previous , day arid were placed therein by witness; Only" two toasts were, hon--oured at the patty, but beyond that de fenefant had nothing to drink. Robert James Nightingale gave corroborative evidence’, -and said that there was no question to doubt defendant s. ■> sobriety.

William Harold Steel gave evideneb along similar lines. Defendant,. in fhe boxp sajd he had attended lodge’ mceting before going tfi the (party, where he arrived at .midnight, and drank only two toasts. Driving -home he had the accident, while travelling at about 20 miles per hour. At the peak of the turn into Sewell Street the tyre went down, and he skidded into the bowser. Had he put on the ■ brakes/ the" result might have been fatal/- - As it wa-s, ;he received a blow on the head'. He went home for his torch to. explore the damage and denied being abusive to the constable, although his neryes were a bit jangled. He admitted declining to make a statement on the night of the accident. He emphatically denied intoxication, and swore that the accident was not due to negligence. ? : The Magistrate said that none of the witnesses for- the prosecution actually i-aw the aeciclent happen. There was direct evidence of strict sobriety; and he would !dismiss that charge.. Regarding the blow-out there was:; no evidence in the prosecution stating when ft occurred, but there was the direct evidence of the defendant;; who, immediately acted in the recognised - manner in declining to apply l the ■ brake; resulting in the - doHisi-on. In hie opinion there was no negligence shown and he dismissed the case. '