INTERESTING DECISION.
'WHEN IS A MOTORIST DRUNK? The Court of Appeal, in London, gave an interesting decision recently on the subject of drunkenness. The .jury in the Court below had stated that they were agreed that the defendant was guilty of being incapable of driving a motor car and that .his condition in that respect had been brought about by alcohol, but that “he was not drunk to the extent —which we should call a drunken ' The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said that no ingenuity could get rid of the words “he was not drunk.” from the statement made by the jury. That was a verdict of “ not guilty.” Whether the word “drunk” in section 40 (I) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, under which the defendant was indicted, ought in the public interest to be defined, and whether that definition ought to be, for instance such a phrase as “in a condition in which a person is unable to drive a motor car by reason of the quantity of alcohol which he has consumed,” were well worthy of consideration.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PUP19280216.2.42
Bibliographic details
Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 224, 16 February 1928, Page 7
Word Count
182INTERESTING DECISION. Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 224, 16 February 1928, Page 7
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Putaruru Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in