PINNED BENEATH LORRY

NZ Truth, Issue 1188, 6 September 1928, Page 2

PINNED BENEATH LORRY

Negligent Driver Fortunate To | Escape With Fine

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Te Aroha Representative.) When a driver takes a motor vehicle on to a public highway with defective machinery, it is like letting loose a tiger, for it then becomes a power for destruction, according to Judge Blair at the Hamilton Supreme Court last week-

THE judge was commenting on a case m which a young carrier, of Waharoa, named John Walker, was charged with causing the death of a Maori woman, through being drunk m charge of a motor-lorry; or, alternatively, through negligence. Walker had a few whiskies before leaving Waihou with a party of Aye natives. According to his own admission to the police, after the accident, he had seven or eight, whilst one witness, a barman, stated that at Waihou he served Walker with a, large Jar of beer, twelve-and-sixpence worth. The Jury was asked, In face of these facts, to state whether or not they considered the man Intoxicated. There Is a legal difference between being intoxicated and being drunk, which the judge explained to the jury. A man, he said, might be Intoxicated while walking along the road and yet not be drunk m the sense that he could be locked up. On the other hand, he might be incapable of properly handling a motor vehicle with due care, and would, within the meaning of the term, be

station, Walker successfully passed all the sobriety tests and gave a coherent reply to all questions. The doctor would not elect to say whether the man at the time of the accident was m q, fit state to drive a motor vehicle or not. A police constable stated that when asked how many drinks he had consumed, Walker replied: "Seven or eight." '■■_„. The vehicle was tested for defeots after the accident. Whilst there was a slight wobble m the wheels, it was not sufficient, said the constable, to interfere with the steering. It was also found that the brakes were of little or no use, hut the vehiole otherwise was m good condition. Lawyer J. F. Strang, for the defence, denied that accused was Intoxicated. Admittedly he had taken several small whiskies, but he retained his full faculties. Counsel attributed the accident to the "shimmying" of the wheels, chiefly, and partly to the ineffective brakes. Various experts were called by both sides to speak as to the cause and effect of "shimmying." The Crown witnesses declared that "shimmying" did not misdirect the

intoxicated. When the lorry had proceeded about a mile out of Waihou on the evening of July 14, it capsized over a

bank on the wrong side of the road. One of the occupants, Wirihia Wherawhera, was pinned beneath and had her neck broken. The road was good and quite dry; there seemed no apparent reason for the -accident other than either carelessness or the intoxication of the driver, although the defence tried to put down the cause to a "shimmying" of the wheels. A few minutes after the accident, a Morrinsville grocer came along. He alleged that when he spoke to Walker, the latter was undoubtedly "slightly intoxicated." When witness asked him what had caused the accident, he did not answer, but when questioned concerning the steering, he jumped at the explanation and replied: "Yes, that's it; the steering!" He also remarked, according to witness: "What about a tenner?" He repeated this several times, by which witness understood him '. to imply that the "tenner" was m the nature of a bribe. Several other witnesses declared that after the accident Walker was undoubtedly under the influence "" of liquor. Several observers stated that they did not consider him m a fit. state to have charge of a motor vehicle, although Dr. Laurence, of Te Aroha, stated that one and a-half hours after the accident, at the Te Aroha police

defence stated that "shimmying" could easily cause a car to run off the road. His honor told the jury that a man could legally7be regarded as intoxicated when he had imbibed sufficient liquor to render him incapable of properly performing the functions of a motorvehicle driver. Commenting on the state of the vehicle, his honor said the evidence showed it to he ill-equipped. In law, there was no difference between a man driving a well-equipped vehicle negligently and driving a badly-equipped vehicle with care.' A driver was negligent who knowingly took on to a public road a vehicle .m a defective mechanical state, which was a possible source of danger to human life. In this case, accused knew that his brakes were ineffective and that the wheels "shimmied," which condition was due to acts of omission on his part m not having these defects remedied. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge of intoxication and guilty of negligence. His honor said that as the jury had not considered the accident due to Walker's intoxication, he would accept their view ' and impose a fine of £100, to be paid within three months, with the alternative of six mdnths' imprisonment.

Bribery Attempt ?

■course ol tne vehicle and was a very improbable cause of the accident. On the other hand, witnesses for . the