Was He in Charge of Car?

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 23, 28 January 1937, Page 2

Was He in Charge of Car?

INTOXICATED DRIVER FOUND IN HOTEL. COURT DISMISSES CASE. (Special to “Times”), HASTINGS, Last Night. Lengthy legal argument arose from a case in the Hastings Magistrate* s Court this morning in which John Donovan Williams, aged 33, pleaded not guilty to a charge of being found intoxicated in charge of a motor-car yesterday. Mr J. Miller, S.M., was on the Bench. The point which caused difficulty was that Senior-Sergeant Sivyer, who prosecuted, alleged that defendant was in an hotel in an intoxicated state, and argued that while in there could be regarded as in charge of a car. Mr Miller would not accept this view, saying he could not convict a man for an intention. There was no overt act disclosed. After long argument between the Magistrate and the senior-sergeant the case was dismissed. Mr W. Selwyn Aver 111 appeared for defendant

Sergeant Mackintosh said he visited the Carlton Club Hotel with another constable. He saw defendant standing by the bar, and asked him to come outside. He then pointed out a car Standing in the street, and defendant said it was his employer’s car and that he was driving it. (Williams was intoxicated and unlit to have charge of a car. Witness therefore arrested him. The allegation was that he was in charge of the car while in the hotel, though he was not in the car and not driving it. Mr Miller said ho had never known such a case and doubted if a conviction could be entered. He felt that such a case was not intended to be covered by the Act, and in his recollection ho knew of no. similar case in New Zealand, Senior-Sergeant Sivyer stressed, however, that many times a man had been arrested in the street near a car, although he was not in it. The presumption in this case was that defendant would have driven the car away if left alone. Mr Miller repeated that there had been no overt act in this case and he would like to have some authority on it., Cross-examined by Mr Averill, Sergeant Mackintosh admitted that defendant had left the bar only at the constable’s request. He had made no suggestion of driving the car and was in fact driven back to the station by the noiice. Constable Burns corroborated. Senior-Sergeant Sivyer submitted that defendant had admitted he was in charge when asked by the constable, but Mr. Miller thought that this was a wrong interpretation to place on his words. He thought that the Act must be narrowed to some physical action. While the car wa3 in the street, said Mr. Miller, there was no danger to anyone. No attempt had been made to drive away. If a man were found on the road near the car there could be sufficient inference that he intended to drive it, but not in a case where a man was inside an hotel. The case had gone much further than any case he had eevr heard.

Senior-Sergeant Sivyer: I have known cases where a man has been the .same distance away from his car as

this man. It was a matter of degree, he thought. Mr. Averill pointed out that in all cases of this nature it had been proved that there was an intention to drive, and in the majority a previous warning had been given and defied. Mr. Miller asked if it was desired to make a test case of it, but the Sergeant said no. He asked, however, for the case to be adjourned until the afternoon to enable him to look up legal opinions. Mr. Averill: Now, Sergeant, why not submit gracefully? No proof has been produced by the police.

Mr. Miller said that he thought it, unsafe to convict in the case, and the action was dismissed