SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 43, 13 October 1931, Page 4

SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT

FAILURE TO REPORT LORRY DRIVER FINED ON TWO SEPARATE COUNTS TWO GIRLS KNOCKED DOWN A Rotorua lorry driver, Walter Armstrong, who appeared before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., yesteday on a charge of failing to report ari aceident to the poliee and a further charge of driving a vehicle at night without both headlights burning, was convicted on both counts and fined 10s in the first instance and £1 ili the second. The case was one arising out of an aeeident which occurred on the hight of A(igust 31, when two girls, Miss Audrey Firth and Miss Elvie May Fisk, who' were walking home along the Whaka Road, were knocked down by a lorry driven by the defendant. It was alleged by the police that Armstrong had only one light burning at the time and that although both the girls were injured, he failed to report the matter as required by the regulations. Armstrong, who was represented by Mr. W. A. Carter, pleaded not guilty on both counts. He denied that his lights had been out of order, but while he admitted that he had not reported the accident to the police, he said that he had' not considered that either of the girls was sufficiently hurt to make it necessary for him to do so. After hearing evidence, the Magistrate imposed a penalty and a conviction in each case. Walking Along Road The accident was described by Audrey Firth, post-mistress at Whaka, who said that she had been knocked down by a lorry as she was walking along the side of the road on her way home. She was wheeling her bicycle at the Unie and was with a companion, Miss Fisk. Her eompanion saw something coming and called out, but she was knocked down before she realised wh&t had happened. Armstrong pulled up his lorry and came back at once. He assisted her to her feet, but when she pointed out that her bicycle was brolcen and that she had a long way to go home, he remarked. "You are all right — no bluffing." Finally he had said that he would drive her home and that he would report the matter to the police. Armstrong had taken her home and she had not seen him again until the case was brought in court. It was the rear part of the vehicle which struclc her and she noticed as it passed her, that only one of the headlights was going. In reply to Mr. Carter, Miss Firth said that she was considerably shaken by the effect of the accident. Her eompanion, who was struck on the leg fainted after Armstrong pulled up, and came back to them. She admitted that the lorry was travelling at a slow speed. She did not remember Armstrong switching on any lights when he restarted the engine, but she reeolleeted that lights were burning on the lorry although they were very dim. There was no refiection on the road in front. She had very little conversation with Armstrong on the road home. Witness did not think it was Armstrong's impression that the accident was of too slight a nature to make it necessary to report it to the police. Only . One Light This witness' story was corroborated by her eompanion, Elvie May Fisk. She said that she heard the noise of an approaching vehicle — she saw only one light and thought it was a motorbicycle. Armstrong did not appear to be very much concerned about the injuries of either herself, or her friend. He said that it was their fault and denied it, when witness accused him of burning only one light. In reply to Mr. Carter, this witness admitted that she did not look to see whether any of the lights on the lorry were burning after the accident. Mr. Carter: Was not Armstrong concerned to know whether you or your friend were injured? He asked us. And you told him you were all right? Yes, but I told him my friend was not. You said that you were all right and then promptly fainted? Yes. Do you faint often? Not often. Continuing witness reiterated her statement that the lorry was showing only one light as it approached, and when Mr. Carter inquired whether she would have got out of the road if there had b'een two lights, she assured him that she would have done so — as she did not like being killed. Only One Going L. G. Libeau stated that Miss Firth brought her broken bicycle into his house and told him about the accident. Both Miss Firth and her friend had obviously suffered a shock of some nature. He observed that the lights of the lorry were not burning as it stood outside witness' house and when Armstrong drove off to take Miss Firth home, only one light appeared ±o be going. Constable Kelly, who interviewed Armstrong in connection with the matter said that defendant contended that his lights had been in good order. He had stated that he had not re~ ported the matter because he did not think the two girls were seriously hurt. Armstrong had been quite straightforward about the affair. Case For Defence The defendant, Walter Armstrong, in the box, denied that his lights were out of order at the time of the accident. It was a dark and difficult night. The two girls were walking on the same side of the road as he was driving. He saw no lights and did not see them in time to avoid an accident. He was quite definite that both of his headlights had been burning and that he had not told Miss Firth that he would report the accident to the police. He did not consider that either of the girls was seriously hurt, and he had not known at the time that when anyone was hurt in an accident it should be reported to the police. Witness said that he had been driving for four years and that his lights, when dimmed, were not good. Edward James Armstrong, father of the defendant, said that he had

driven the truck on the day before the accident and the lights were then quite efficient. He knew that the truck had gone out that same night after the accident and the lights were still quite all right. The truck had afterwards been overhauled but it had not been necessary to do anything to the lights. Mr. Carter produeed the accounts from the garage to prove this point and closed his case. The Magistrate said that there was a conflict of evidence as to the lights but he was prepared to aecept that of Mr. Libeau, who was the only independent witness of the five called. So far as the failure to report was concerned, he considered that the elause in the Motor Vehieles Act must be read to mean that all accident injuries, no matter how slight, must be reported. A person might sustain an apparently slight injury and afterwards discover that it was serious. Defendant, however, might have the excuse that he did not consider it necessary to report the matter. A fine of £1 was imposed on the charge of having insufficient lighting, and 10s on the charge of failing to report.