INTOXICATED MOTORIST

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 20 January 1931, Page 6

INTOXICATED MOTORIST

LICENSE SUSPENDED FOR THREE MONTHS

Yesterday evening Constable Austin, in response to a telephone call, proceeded to Milton Grove and arrested James Stewart Connell, draper, of Richmond, for being found in a state* of intoxication while in charge of a motor vehicle. Connell was charged with the offence before Mr T. E. Maunsell. .S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court this morning and pleaded guilty. Detective Sinclair, who prosecuted, stated that earlier in the evening Constable Austin had observed the accused driving in rather an erratic maimer. When arrested Connell stated that he had gone to a quiet place in order to sober up. He had been previously convicted for a similar offence at Reefton in October last, when he was fined £5. ill' W. C. Harley, who appeared for accused, said the case was a difficult one, but that there were some things to be said on accused’s behalf, not in mitigation of the offence but in regard to any penalty that might be inflicted. Connell had been at Richmond for a number of years and was a particularly good worker, but he had occasional lapses of insobriety. He had been making a very good fight, and counsel had been in touch with him through, an organisation he was associated with The accused went round the country in a van, which was his sole means of livelihood. Prohibition orders had been taken out at accused’s request in order to help him. To suspend his license for a considerable length of time would simply throw him into the ranks of the unemployed, while on the other hand his financial position would not enable him to stand a big fine. Counsel added that the accused, feeling himself the worse for liquor, had driven his van to Milton Grove in order to get sober. In answer to the Magistrate it was stated that the accused was not prohibited at the present time. The Magistrate remarked that the difficulty in the case was that if he suspended the accused’s license it would seriously interfere with his means of livelihood, but as against that he had already had a warning in the shape of a fine which had turned. out ineffectual. It appeared to the Magistrate that the man was too weak to resist drink and that being so he was afraid that the misfortune must fall on accused s own shoulders than on some poor unfortunate who might be killed on the highway. It was really a question whether in the public interests the man should not be disqualified indefinitely from using a motor car on the highway. When the interests of the public and the interests of the individual conflict the interests of the public must prevail and the individual must suffer. It was his invariable practice .to suspend licenses on a second conviction and he must suspend the license in the case under review. He did not think this would mean putting the van aside; there must be men out of eihployment able to drive cars who would be only too pleased to drive the van for comparatively small pay. As to a fine, the Magistrate said he attached more importance to the suspension of the license, which would have the effect of a monetarv penalty. The Magistrate then admitted the accused to probation for 12 months, on condition that a prohibition order be taken out, and suspended the license to drive for three months, the suspension to be endorsed on the license.