RECKLESS DRIVING CHARGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2887, 23 May 1925, Page 2

RECKLESS DRIVING CHARGE.

SEQUEL TO MOTOR SMASH AT RAXGIOTF. FIXE OF £f, INFLICTED. At yesterday’s S.Af. Court before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., the police proceeded against Alexander W. Chapman for driving a car in an alleged reckless manner on the Eoxion-Palmcrsion North road. Mr Oakley represented defendant who pleaded not guilty and the case for the prosecution was conducted by Constable Owen. In outlining the case. Constable Owen -dated that at a little after six o’clock on the night of April 27th, a man named ! Seat on accompanied by his wife and children were proceeding towards Ranginiu in a car and when nearing a bend in the road defendant's car, approaching on its wrong side of the road at an alleged reckless pace crashed into them. Seaton at the time of the accident alleged that he was on the correct side of the road and had pulled up as he anticipated the smash. Albert Charles Seaton, factory manager of Rangiotu, in evidence stated that on the night in question lie had taken his wife and children for a drive as far as Longburn. When nearing Rangiotu coming home he noticed the lights of a ciir about a quarter of a mile away and slowed down and pulled over to the left side of the road. The approaching ear was travelling at a very fast speed on the wrong side of the road. Witness anticipated a smash and brought his ear to a standstill with its off-side wheels almost touching the grass on his correct side of the road. The approaching car rounded the bend on its wrong side and struck witness s car. Defendant had ample time to avoid a smash if he had had his car under control. The ear hit the front wheel of witness s ear and lore off the right hand mudguards and then proceeded a distance of t-i or If) feet and tipped upside down in ihe middle of the road. Witness went up to the overturned car and found if contained three men and assisted to right the ear. None of the occupants was injured. 1). fondant. admitted that he had been having- i rouble with liU lights and had to travel fast to get a good light. There had been plenty of room to pass if the car had been driven carefully. Defendant also said: “I don’t know how the devil we got over here." Damage to witness's cur amounted to rif). Had a driver’s license, and had been driving a ear for inii years. Tic estimated the speed liu 1 defendant's car was travelling at the time <>f the smash to he at least 2d miles per hoar. Mr Oakley at this juncture produced a plmto of the accident. ••This," he said to witness, “is a photo taken alter the accident.” The S.M.: “What, at night Mr Oakley explained that the photo had been taken the next morning. Witness said the car had been s hi ft i d after the accident as it was In the middle of the road and blocked tralfie. To Air Oakley: He had not reported the matter t<> the police to vet damages. It was a regulation of the Abhor Vehicles Act to rein.ri accidents.. Constable Owen reminded coun-:-ei for defendant that the ease had liccn brought on bv the police and not witness. Witness said the road at the scene of thi> accident was 22 feet wide with about four feet of grass on each side. As his car stood be lore tin' accident it occupied only one third of the metalled road on iis correct side. Mrs M. E. Seaton, wife of previous witness gave eoi - roboiuti\e c\ idenec. She had anticipated an accident and had covered her baby’s head with a rug. She had not discussed the case with her Imshsnd. Mr Oakley: Its funny you both The S.AI.: It wouldn’t be funny if it’s correct. Win ness corroborated her husIkiihl’s evidence as to what deI'endant said after the accident. Hc also said. “Anyone can see it’s our fault." Defendant didn’t worry about witness’s condition or that ~i her children but merely displayed bis cut band. T. 11. Simpson, farmer, of ~tn, gave evidence as to viewing the scene by t lie aid ot his ear lights after the accident. Seaton's car was on its correct side of the mad occupying about eight feet and leaving 13 feet of road clear. He traced ear marks which he Relived were made by defendant s ear for some distance on the wrong side of the road. The road was good at this point. He would not say that motorists slowed down when negotiating the bridge a short distance on the Rangiotu side of Ihe accident. Consto tile Ityan gave evidence to viewing the spot the following morning. A car had been two paces from the left side of Lite road coming front I’almerstpn. lie noticed marks in the middle of the road where a ear had evidently overturned. Marks on the left side of file road from Palmerston showed where car wheels had been screwed round, evidently made by Seaton's car when it was struck by defendant's ear. AVitness interviewed defendant a few days after the accident and he had said that on the night of the accident his lights had been bad, and were run off the engine. He had got ratlier close to Seaton’s car before he not-

tieed it and then speeded up to getj| on his correct .side of the road, but „ struck the other ear before he got over. AL - Oakley said the defence was a complete denial of previous evidence ami called defendant to give evidence. Alexander AY. Chapman in evidence stated that oil the night in question it was raining. He noticed ear lights ahead when nearing the bend. Tit* eased up when crossing the bridge a few chains on the Eoxton .-idc of the accident and hail speeded up his engine declutched to brighten the lights but had not increased liis pace. He turned the corner on his left hand side and had his off-side wheels on the grass. Seaton's car was on its wrong side and he struck the front wheel. As his hack wheels were on the grass they wouldn’t grip and consequently the car went over on its letj side almost level with Seaton's car. Another ear then came up and pulled in behind witness's car, backed out and passed on on tlie outside of Seaton's ear. Seaton was taking up 18 feet of the road. The only words lie said to Seaton was that it was a pity he (Seaton) didn't keep on his right side of the road, and to ask his

name. To Constable Owen: Ilis ear was not badly damaged. Constable Owen said that in a signed statement taken by Palmerston North police, witness had said his car was damaged beyond repair. Witness, continuing, said that at Ihe time of the accident he was travelling at ten to 12 miles per hour. Denied being a fast driver or having been in a smash at Huntcrville twelve months ago. E. M. Stephenson, hotel keeper, of Palmerston North, one of the occupants of defendant's car, deposed that Seaton's car was in the middle of the road and corroborated previous witness's statements. \Y. 11. McAlillan, Palmerston North, rhe other occupant of the car also gave corroborative evidence. A conversation between defendant and Seaton could have been indulged in out of their hearing. _ j. An independent witness named Paese. motor mechanic, of Palmerston North also gave evidence for defendant. Witness had arrived immediately after the accident and said the whole tiling; was so clear in his mind that he could draw it. Seaton’s cal - was in the middle of the road. Constable Owen, producing pencil and paper, “let the Court have that sketch.” Witness proceeded to depict the accident and when cross questioned by Constable Owen on the drawing proved by the figures and drawing that Seaton’s ear occupied only eleven feet of the road at the outside. The S.AI. ‘‘Eleven feet is ju§t half the road." Mr. Oakley asked His Worship to inspect the bend, but this he declined to do as he said he knew it well. In summing up His Worship said that the evidence of the principal parties was contiiciing. Roth saw the other approaching and both should have taken care to avoid a collision. Chapman said Seaton’s car was over the crown of the road, and lie had not enough room to pass. This statement is detiied by Sca ton, his wife, Simpson and Pease, \yho said there was eleven i'ect clear. The fact that another car pulled round did not matter milch, as it could have got past oil ihe grass. Constable Ryan's evidence, which was very fair, was that there were impact marks on the side of the road where the wheels of a car had been knocked sideways and further on in the middle of the mad marks of an overturned ear. There was no evidence by the defendant about these marks, and they must he guided by the indications. Constable Ryan’s evidence went to support Seaton and his witnesses, that Seaton’s car was over the reown of the road, and half was left for Chapman, who, if lie was proceeding carefully, could not possibly have collided with Seaton. Jiis explanation to Seaton and Constable Ryan (which he now denied) can't tie true, because be now .•a ve evidence that he saw lights of a car approaching. That explanation seemed to be rather and excuse for being caught on the wrong side of ihe road. The marks on the road supported Seaton’s evidence. Pease, who was not connected with either side, had worked it out that Chapman had eleven feet of road. Chapman would lie lined £5, with corns £2. An endorsement of the license would not be made on this

occasion