SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 1977, 15 May 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

MOTOR CAR FATALITY. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. At the Supreme Court, Palmerston North, a native named Joseph "Williams was charged with manslaughter, it being, alleged Unit ho had, at Levin on the 21st April, caused the death of one Richai’d Eretehling by negligently driving a motor ear - .

Mr F. 11. Cooke prosecuted on be - halt", of the Crown, while the prisoner was represented by Mr IT. Cooper. Captain Precce was retained to act as interpreter, when required.

The following jury was empanelled: Messrs C. F. Goodridge (foreman), Cl. Hancock, A. J. Hiekin, C. J. Low, C. H. Reyman, C. IV. Fuller, IV. Anderson, R, 11. Godfrey, E. L. Jones, F. Brett, IV. T. Irvine, F. Kirk.

The first a il ness called was Richard Allen Prouse, farmer, of Levin, who stated that on the evening of April 21st, while in Oxford St., Levin, he had --ecu a motor car and a bicycle mining along the road. They were about a chain and u-half apart when be first saw them, with the bicycle in front. They were travelling towards the south. The ear only laid one light, and it was on the right-hand side. After the car passed he saw there was no tail light. The ear was going about 12 to 15 miles an hour, and the bicycle about six. The bicycle seemed to be going straight, and the ear seemed to be inclining at an angle toward* the, curve on the left-hand side of the road. He noticed nothing peculiar about the way (he ear was he-

ing driven

Continuing his evidence, Air Prouse stated that there was room on the right-hand side of the road. Fie sawthe car and I lie cyclist, and I tie ear was coming at an angle towards (he eyelist. He wondered whether they were going to hit or not, and then he saw the collision was going to happen. He tried to call out, but was unable (o. They were (hen ahout 12 or 11 feet from witness. The ear and the eyelist then collided, the man being carried on the left-hand mudguard in a stooping position. The car struck the near •wheel of the bicycle. The ruler must have bad bis legs tangled in the bicycle, which prevented him falling at the lime. The ear carried I he cyclist about 2-1 yards before he fell. The ear was not going very fast, and could have been pulled up in about .12 or In (eel, from witness's knowledge. After the collision the ear went outside of the road ami inside the next tree. Deceased did not fall till lie was idoso alongside the curl). The ear then inclined back into the middle of the road, but did not stop, and went on in a southerly direction. The ear did not increase its speed, and it seemed to lie making a rattling sort of noise.

In answer to his Honour, witness said that there was enough light for the driver of the car to see the eve list.

To Mr Cooper: There was one street lamp fairly close in the middle of (he street. He did not remember whether ’noth lights on the car were alight. He did not know whether there was a moon. The ear was a tardy silent car. Me could not hear it from where ho was, but he heard it when it was fairly close to him. I'he cyclist (Mr Fretehling) was very deaf and so might not have heard the ear. The cyclist was apparently in the act of .free-wheeling. He did not. see Hie cyclist (urn his head. There were some other people on I he footpath near him, a soldier, two old men and some ehildren. He had nol seen any of these people giving evidence either at the inquest or in the -Magistrate's Court. To Mr Cooke: As far as he could see the cyclist was going in a. straight line at the time of the accident.

Another witness, Frederick Win., Jones, stationer, of Levin, also described the accident, at the time of which he said the si reel lights were dimly lighted. He noticed the car that was being driven in a zigzag "fashion on the left hand side of the road. Ho noticed the ear, which was being driven by a Maori, take a sudden swerve towards the footpath, and run along in between a tree and the footpath.- He could not identity accused as the driver of the ear. He did not see any bicycle about. It was too dark to see the cyclist. After the accident he noticed the ear drive on and it seemed to go on at an increased speed towards the railway station. The driver of the ear did not seem to make any altempt (0 stop. He did not notice the lights on the. ear. The ear was a Buiek, By Air Cooper: The only light was the street lamp and only one lamp was alight. ' If the cyclist was riding close to the trees the trees would not make it harder to see the cyclist. He knew the late Air .Fretehling was deaf hut he did not know that he had previously been run into by a muior ear.

Henry Oroome, motor mechanic, of Levin, deposed that on the night of the. accident he saw a car coming towards him in a southerly direction with an obstruction underneath it. The obstruction looked like a bicycle and it was being drugged along. Witness did not see the collision. He could see the driver of the car was a Maori, but he could not identify him. Witness ran out to within about 10 feet of the car and called out to the driver to atop, but the later drove on. He did not know whether he heard or sot. The car way travelling

about twelve miles an hour, and the driver of the car ought to have been aware that there was something wrong as he drove along with the cycle under the machine, because of the noise of the obstruction which attracted witness’ attention.

Allan Grant, an instructor at the State Farm, Levin, also gave evidence as to having seen an obstruction under a car driven on the Beach Road on the evening of the fatality * Evidence as to the extent of the injuries suffered by the deceased Eretehling was given by Dr IV. J. Putney of Otaki. Three days after his admission to the Otaki Hospital deceased died as the result of the injuries he had received. Evidence was given by Henry B. France, builder, and James E. Connor, tailor, of Levin, both of whom identified the remains of a bycycle as the property of the late Mr Eretehling. , Cross-examined by Mr Cooper, both witnesses stated that deceased was pretty deaf. Connor also stated I hat he had heard that deceased had been bumped iuto by a motor car once before.

IVilliam Gregau, police constable stationed at Levin, deposed as to having interviewed the accused, who had denied all knowledge of any accident to (lie deceased. Accused also told witness that he did not drive through the township that night, as he had gone homo a round about way because be had only one light on his ear. Witness also described the state af accused’* ear which he had examined on the morning afTer the accident. lAitness also stated that he found in a swamp 30 yards off the Beach road the handle bars and other parts of a bicycle (produced). Evidence was given by Constable John Baque, of Levin, corroborative of the evidence of the previous witness, Constable Grogan, and as to the accused having denied any knowledge of the accident to i'reteliiing.

To Mr Cooper: The accused was a good citizen and not addicted to drink.

Deleetive-Sergt. T. Quirko, of Palmerston North, deposed to buying interviewed the accused at Levin on 22nd April. Accused at ilrst denied any knowledge of the attair, but about three-quarters of an hour later he intimated to witness that he would (ell everything. Witness then look down a statement from accused, in the course of which he admitted stopping in Levin on the night: in question on Ids way back from the Eeilding; races. He had one small light burning on the ear. During the day lie had a few drinks at Eeilding, one at Awahnri, two at Eoxlon, and a Jew “shandies” at Levin. When he started to go homo from Levin he was a bit silly in his head through drink. In leaving Levin lie passed down ilie street at about 10 miles an hour. .11 was dark, and lie could not see very well. He believed that it was in passing (ho tailor’s shop that lie ran. into something which fell like a bicycle. Then he heard something rattling, which slopped after lie had gone a Jew yards. Ho (accused) was on the left-hand side of the road —the right: one for him. W lien he struck something in passing the tailor’s shop he felt a bump, but he could not say whether it. was a man or not. After this he pul on speed and drove away quickly, and went home. In his statement the accused also said that the reason why he first denied knocking anybody down was that he was frightened, and I hat he did not then know that it; was a mau ho had mu into.

Cross-examined by Mr Cooper, witness said that he had had considerable experience with natives, and he had often found that it was the impulse act of a Maori when hf got into trouble to lie or run away and hide.

THE DEFENCE,

This closed the ease for the Crown, and on behalf of tho prisoner Mr Cooper said that it was no'i proposed to call any evidence.

After Air Cooke had summed up for the Crown, Air Cooper addressed Hie jury at length on behall of the prisoner. Air Cooper, in his argument. contended that the Crown had failed to establish criminal negligence. that it was not the result of pure accident, or that there had not been contributory negligence on tho part of the deceased. Incidentally, counsel commented that it was a great pity that the evidence of a number of oilier persons who it was. shown had witnessed the accident had not been called by the prosecution, No evidence bail been shown (hat (he accused was much I lie worse for liquor. Further, Ihe two constables had deposed Unit two or three hours after the accident accused was perfectly sober. The only witness who was called to describe the actual happening of the accident had staled that the ear was being driven straight. r ihc Crown’s ease was devoid of any evidence of an act on tho part ot the .accused to establish that hi could be hold responsible for the collision. On the other hand, them was direct evidence that tho late Air Fretehling was very deal, which was a very significant factor. Concluding, he emphasised that the Crown had utterly failed to prove that Fretehling had met his death, through carelessness on the part of the accused.

After his Honour had summed up the jurv retired. i THE PRISONER SENTENCED. After half-an-hour’s retirement, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation it) mercy.

In asking if prisoner could be admitted to probation, Sir Cooper pointed out that Williams had a

wife and two children, and that he was a man of good character and sober habits. His Honour remarked that he was sorry to see the prisoner in such a. position. He knew that he was a respectable man of good character, but he was sure that the deceased met his death because prisoner was not perfectly sober and was not looking out as have done. He would have to send him to prison, not so much for the purpose of punishing him, as to let other people know their responsibilities hi such matters. In view of the jury’s recommendation he would make the sentence a good deal shorter than it would have been. Concluding, His Honour remarked; “I must recognise the necessity £< r keeping the roads clear for people lawfully using them, to protect such people against such dangerous conduct as yours.” Sentence of six months’ imprisonment with hard labour was then passed. In discharging the jury, His Honour complimented them on their verdict. He had dealt with other cases in which the evidence was just as clear and the accused had not been found guilty. In those cases the jury had not been scrupulous, but iti this case the jury had done its dut v.