UNFIT TO DRIVE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 598, 1 August 1933, Page 6

UNFIT TO DRIVE

license cancelled MOTORIST WHO DROVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRINK ' ERRATIC COURSE TO WHAKA Charged under Seetion 28 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, with being in charge of a car whilst under the influence of liquor Henry Farrell appeared before Messrs W. L. Richards and 0. H. Coleman, Justices of the Feace, at the Rotorua Magistrate's Court yesterday morning and was 'fined £5 and his license cancelled for six months. Farrell pleaded not guilty and was represented by Mr. R. Potter, Senior-Sergeant E. J. Carroll proseeuting for the police. Senior-Sergeant Carroll said that on Saturday evening shortly after 9 o.'clock Traffic Inspector D. M. Ford had received information that a car was being driven in an erratic manner towards Whakarewarewa. The inspector had followed the car, which had stopped in Froude Street in the vicinity of the Geyser Hotel, and had disabled it by taking a part from the distributor and had then called Constable Shilton. After being found by the two officers Farrell had admit. ted that he had been drinking and that he had tried to start the car after rciurning to it in Froude Street, but could not do so. In the opinion of the senior-sergeant he was unfit to be in ehars;e of the car at the time. An Erratic Course Traffic Inspector D. M. Ford said that at about 9.30 p.m. on Saturday he noticed a car proceeding erratically towards Whaka with another car in front. The iirst car had turned into Sophia Street and the other proceeded to Froudu Street, the driver and another native going into the Geyser Hotel. He was quite satisfied that the driver as intoxicated and removed a part of the distributor on the car. The accused and his friend wero apparently refused drinks at the hotel as they came out almost immediately and Farrell admitted to witness and Constable Shilton that he had been drinking. He had then been taken t0 the police station. Farrell was unsteady in his gait and his speech was thick. In reply to Mr. Potter the witness said that the car was in the vicinity of Devon Street wlien he iirst saw it and that it was being driven all over the road. It was being driven at a speed of between 20 and 25 miles an hour. The accused had not had time s for a drink at the Geyser Hotel but had said he had had liquor at the races. He had been in similar trouble in 1929, but after a time his license had been returned. Tliere were women and children in the car and it was partly for this reason that he had removed the distributor part. Not Fit To Drive Constable A. Shilton corroborated the evidence of the traffic inspector regarding accused's admission of ha-/-ing six drinks at the races and as to having endeavoured to re-start his car . in Froude Street without success. In his opinion Farrell was not in a fit condition to drive his car. Accused had told the constable that the reason why the car would not start was because someone had interfered with the distributor. Mr. Potter contended that the accused must have been fairly sober to discover that his distributor was d:sabled in the darkness, but Constable Shilton reiterated that Farrell was not in a fit condition to drive. He had made no admission of having had drink at Whaka and had n it nsked to be examined by a doctor

at the station. In evidence Senior-Sergeant Carroll said that when accused had been brought to the police station he had been satisfied that Farrell was under the influence of liquor. He was quiet but was not in a fit state to be in charge of a car. In reply to Mr. Potter the senior-sergeant admitted that accused was not absolutely intox cated. He appeared sleepy and was r. :t offensive. Had Drink at Races Mr. Potter said accused had staiod he had been tn tne races and did not have money to yet any more dri -k. He had had a bottle of home br w and had been shopping with his w'fe after dinner. He contended that if ihe man could get into his car and d scover something taken from the c. stributor he was not very intoxicat ,;d. Accused's Story In evidence Farrell said that on Saturday afternoon he had been to the races and had had two drinks. He had passed the inspector after the races and had not been stopped. A '; a friend's place later he had helped to drink a bottle of home-brew. T.:is would be at about 6 p.m. At 7.30 he came into town to shop, in the car and met a friend. He had a r.iece at Whaka and with his friend and family went out to see her. He drovo at between 20 and 25 miles an hour and admitted driving erratically at about two places as the baby with. his wife in front would interfere w'th the wheel. He had not gone into the hotel for a drink and when he came out, discover°d that Mr. Ford was m the scene. If he had been under ihe inflpence of liquor he would no. have driven "the car on account of h u wife ■and children. He contended that he was not drunk and could han lle the car. To the bench Farrell said that the

only reason he went into the hotel was to ring Speddings Garage. He did not know why his wife would ask" the traffic inspector to bring hirn out of the hotel. Charge Denied To the bench Farrell said that he had only been in the hotel on one oci'casion and denied telling the police I that he had had six drinks at the I races. He said he was definitely not ! drunk on Saturday evening. The three police witnesses might say he was not fit to -drive a car but could not say he was drunk. j Mr. Richards said that he was struck by the fact that Farrell's wife considered him unfit to drive the car and therefore had wanted to get him out of the hotel. I To the bench Farrell said that he was not a h'eavy drinker and one or two bottles of home brew would possibly upse't him. He " said that soon after he attempted to start the car he realised that something was wrong with the distributor and had told- the constable. His wife had not told him that this had been taken out of the car. Order 'Received Mr. R. P. Spedding said that his firm had received instructions to take a rotary for a distributor to Whaka and to bring the car in. A man would have to be in his ordinary senses to discover quickly that a -rotary was missing from a car, particularly at night time. He did not see Farrel and could not say in what condition he was at the time. He had never seen Farrel under the influence of liquor since 1928. Farrell took great care of his car. I Child in the Way A native passenger in the car said that he first met Farrell outside a shop in Tutanekai Street and they had gone to Whaka together. He had been sitting in the back of the car with two children, the wife and child being in the front. Near Marguerita Street the- car had zigzagged and he had told Farrell to watch the child as it was interfering with the wheel. He was a nervous passenger in a car and would not have driven with Farrell if he thought he had been drinking heavily. Farrell was quite sober at about 8 o'clock. Mr. Richards: Then between 8 and 9.30 p.m. it would be quite possible for a man to get drunk. The Wi'fe's Yersion Mrs. Farrell, wife of the accused, said that they had been in town early on Saturday evening and had also been at the races on Saturday afternoon. Her husband had told her he had had two drinks and he had later had some home brew at a friend's place. On the way out to Whaka her husband had driven at a reasonable pace but the baby had been interfering with the wheel. The inspector had taken something out of the car and asked for the driver. To the inspector she said that he had gone to see his niece and the inspector had suggested that he had gone to the hotel. She had then told the inspector that if he had seen him go in would he bring him out. She was quite satisfied to drive with him. Apparently Sober Edward Emeny, employed by R. P. Spedding, said that he had received a ring to go to Whaka to have a look at the car. Farrell had given his name and said that there was something wrong with the distributor. It , had been fairly dark where the car . was parked. There was nothing thick or incoherent with' Farrell's voice. ! Farrell did not do his own repairs and , he must have been fairly sober to pick j what the trouble had been. To the Senior-Sergeant the witness J said that he had not seen Farrell and ; did not know that telephone messages j were not considered sufficient evid-

ence in such cases. Mr. Potter: The unfortunate thing is that he had been taken to the station without anyone seeing him, sir. Recalled by the bench, Mr. Ford said that when he arrived the men were walking towards the hotel. After he had gone back to the car he was told by Mrs. Farrell that "he has gone with a friend, get him quick" and he had then seen the accused come out of the Geyser Hotel door. Mr. Potter said that it appeared to be a matter of opinion whether or not, accused was unfit to drive the car as all the witnesses for the defence had said that they would not go with him if he had been drunk. It appeared to be a border line case. The Court Satisfied The bench said that the evidence of the three police witnesses that accused was unfit to drive as against the evidence of the three witnesses for j the defence practically balanced each' j other, but it seemsd unreasonable to them that three such officers would deliberately bfinp a charge if it were not true. Their evidence would there- ! fore be accepted and although liable j to a fine of £100 and three months' I imprisonment, ,'the circumstanees ' would be fully considered and Farrell be fined £5 and have his license cancelled for six months. Fourteen days were allowed to pay the fine. j