FATAL MOTOR ACCIDENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9794, 18 October 1917, Page 7

FATAL MOTOR ACCIDENT

ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER CHATF FEUE COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. Percy Withers, chauffeur to Mr Walter Johnston, was charged before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M.. yesterday with manslaughter. The charge arose out of tho death of a boy 5j years of ago named Gordon Challis, who died at tho Wellington Hospital as the result of being knocked down by a motor-car dnveu by the defendant. Mr P. S. K. Macassey prosecuted on behalf of tho Crown, and Mr A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr G. G. G. Watson, appeared for the defendant. Mr Macassey, in opening, said that the facts wore simple. About 4.20 o'clock on tho afternoon of September 14th, a little child was killed in Molcswortli street by a motor-car driven by Withers and owned by Mr Walter Johnston. Tho motor-car was proceeding in tho direction'of Lamb ton quay. Tire car was travelling ■ close to the footpath, and it appeared that Withers, when he saw the child ou the road, blew his horn and applied tho brakes of. the car. In' trying' to avoid the child Withers mounted tho car on to the footpath, knocked off part of tho kerbstone, and carried away a veran-dah-post. On examination' it w'as' found that the car-had skidded for 75 yards. The question, said counsel, was whether defendant was culpably blameworthy. When the defendant first saw the child the oar was thirty yards away, and Withers should have" had his car under control so’-that ho could have pulled it up. He had no right to assume that a child, oj years of ngc, would take as much care as a grown-up when crossing a street. Knowing this, defendant should have pulled up his car. A number of -witnesses were called for the prosecution. Their evidence was similar to that given, before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., at the coroner's inquest. Sir Gray, K.C., submitted there was no case to answer, or one that should be sent to a jury. Thy unfortunate occurrence was the result of an inevitable accident. Evidence . had been adduced that Withers--was--a- careful and competent driver. Everyone ■ was liable to err in his judgment. When tho defendant saw the child run- out on to the street a collision was inevitable. At a point- nearly 100 feet away from tho scene of the accident .tho defendant made an attempt,to reduce the pace of his car, if not to stop.it altogether. The most that could bo said was that Withers may have made an error of judgment in driving at tho speed ho did having regard to the hour, although tho speed was not excessive, or he may have erred in trying to drivo round'the child. There was no evidence that the child bad been dragged by tho car, and it was possible the accident might have been avoided had tho defendant transgressed the rules of the road. If an error of judgment had taken place tho defendant could not bo held to ho criminally liable. Mr Drake had pul his finger on the spot regarding children of tender years being allowed on the streets without being accompanied by persons of mono mature years. Tho defendant had already suffered agony through knowing that ho had unwittingly caused the death of a. child of tender years. Having a child of a similar ago to that of the deceased bo suffered great pain of mind. Tbe defendant had done nothing that any other expert driver would not have done in tho circumstances. The evidence at the coroner’s inquiry did not show that tho defendant was guilty of negligence or want of caro. Tho Bench said that when a person loses his life through the act of another only slight evidence is necessary in order for that other person to answer for bis act before a common jury. Although it was inadvisable for children to bo’ allowed on tho streets unattended it must be expected that they would bo-on the streets-and driv-e-re'should make provision for such being the case. In his opinion there was a case to go before a common jury Defendant, who‘reserved his defence, was committed to tbo Supremo Court to stand his trial.