POLICE v. STOHR.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 48, 23 September 1916, Page 3

POLICE v. STOHR.

alleged furious motordriving. THE CASE DISMISSED. A charge of furious motor-driving, arising out of the accident on the Mountain Road on duly 29 last, when a motor car driven by Mr 1. B. Stohr collided with a motor cycle ridden hy Mr Henry Sutton, an employee of the Simplex Milking Machine Co., was heard at the Stiatioid Police Court yesterday. Sergeant Dale conducted the case for the Police, and Mr A. H. Johnstone appeared lor defendant, who pleaded not guilvy. George Edward Bocock, creamoiy manager, said on the 29th July B*^ l he was driving a motor car ii'om Now Plymouth to’Stratford, and when near the Kahouri Hoad about 5.30, be met a car going in the opposite direction. He did not know who was driving, but whoever it was, he did not give witness enough room, and ho had to pull off the metal. Both had lights. To Mr Johnstone : There was ample room to pass if one cared to go oil the metal. William Leonard Lacey, motor mechanic, stated that on the dav n. question, he left Stanley Road, -Midhirst about live o’clock for Stratforc, and mot defendant’car coming towards him, while Sutton was riding behind 09 a motor bike. He saw Stohr pass Bocock, and could see there was not much room, so he took to the mud. Witness passed nothing on the road until he got to the abattoir bridge, when witness saw the car coming. The road was very sloppy. James A. Thompson, another occupant of Lacey’s ear also gave evidence.

Sergeant Dale; What sort of course was the car steering? Witness: Very irregular. It looked as il a new chum was driving.

The speed of the ear?, about 30 to 40 miles an hour.

The Magistrate: /Was it up hill?— Yes, very slight grade. 'Reginald G redig, motor mechanic, o* a ve evidence. On 29th July, he was sent to the scene of the accident. He took Mrs Stohr and Mr Cuff with him. About a quarter of a mile past the abattoirs he saw' the car and motor cycle, on its side with the motor bike underneath. Witness had a look to trace any marks, and found tin only marks were those made by tli motor cycle skidding.

Sergeant Dale: Was defendant there? Yes: He did not seem sober. Was be in such condition that he 'Pas unfit t odrive? Hardly. Continuing, witness mentioned that Stohr’s ear was brought into their garage. The brakes were in lirstclass order.

Mr Johnson: Do you consider the brakes had been used? —No, there was no sign whatever. 'Hie Magistrate: What was the, position of the car —«no wheel "as on "the soft and the other on the metal, . Mr Johnston: There was ample room to pass on the proper side?— Yes. What was the state of the road?— rDirectly opposite there was

a puddle. I suggest it was a good road between the metal and the soli road. There was a small puddle. Yon know of no reason "by the accident should occur? —None what ever. The road (where the accident occurred) is fully GO feet wide?— lt is certainly. What was the position of the ear; The rear wheels of the ear were on the edge of the metal. As the car then stood, there was ample room for anyone to pass on the proper side ?—Yes,, absolutely. Alan I) Cuff, motor dealer, said ho went with G redig to the scene of the accident. Witness thought defendant was not sober, and sent for the police. Defendant was in the car. Asked how. the accident occurred. Defendant said ‘Chore is the car ami there is the bike.” It appeared that the car had been coming on the wrong side of the road. The marks were or. the right-band side Pf the road. ’1 T car had been coming on the wrong side’ami had Grossed over and caught the cycle.

Mr*Johnstone: I suggest that there is 1,0 bank at the place where the accident happened?—On the loft side there is a bank three foot high on one side of the road, and eighteen inches on the other a gradual slope. Immediately before Mr Stohr cairn he passed through a cuttinglt "* l, quite dark when I was there. The Magistrate; Have you bee there since? —Yes, tins morning. Mr Johnstone: The road is ver. wideP Yes, about 16 feet of meta. for a considerable distance there ■ good road, and what you call simp, “ravel for four or live feet. ° Questioned as to the way the accident happened, witness added the cm took a sharp turn to the left and then stopped/ There was no sign of any ipaet. There were ,no sign of any brake marks. Thos, Harry Srttton, the ruler N ol the motor-cycle, said he bad ridden a motor-cycle since last Match. When he met the car he was on his right side waiting for the car to turn oil, and b 0 had to go to the left SKie > which was sloping off to the wet and mud. No sooner had lie turned than the car pulled out also, and in consequence, they collided. He found himself laying on the ground. De - fondant and his wife were sitting mi tiic car, and defendant came am said witnesses’ leg was broken. Said he had been a chemist, pulled Ins leg. and it gave him pain. Witness said, leave it alone. My leg is broken. The Magistrate; -■'Was he sober?— He appeared to be in hull stage oi intoxication. Mr Johnstone: How far off did you see defendant?—About two chains. Why did you not slow down ? There was not time. I suggest there was ample time for you to stop. Mr Johnstone submitted the accident was due to Sutton, who was 1 inexperienced driver. Constable Robertson stated that at G. 45 he arrived at the scene of the accident. He considered defendant was -under the 'influence of liquor. He appeared not to realise what bad happened.

Sidney Artluir Ward gave evidence ils to defendant being perfectly sober live minutes past live o’clock on Die date of the'accident. Lily Mary Robinson, wife of M in. H. Robinson, giving evidence said, on 29th July, she went as far as Mr Webster’s in Mr Stolir’s car. Aituoss was sitting in the. back seat with Mrs Stohr.

51 1- Johnstone: What was his condition ?—Witness replied she dul not notice anything wrong.

Edward Baldwin Stohr, defendants said he had not had any drink after four o’clock on the day mentioned. He had a drink before he left Eltbam. Questioned hy the Magistrate as to the kind of drink ho had, witness said it was a small shandy; he also had four qr five drinks of mineral water. He had had no spirits that day. AVdness, continuing, said ho called to see two passengers and spent twenty minutes in Stratford, and took Mis Robinson as a passenger. Witness saw the motor cycle aproaching a little past the abattoirs- Witness saw a motor hike a quarter of a mile away. The motor bike was not easing off. so witness slowed down. There was then an impact with the motor cycle, and defendant was thrown off his scat. Witness and his wife held Sutton’s log, as defendant complained that his log was broken.

The S.M., in giving his decision, sa id:_“l do not think there is any positive objection to the police having taken up this prosecution. It has certainly given some opportunity towards eliciting the circumstances ol the case. But 1 am no means certain that the trpth has been laid before me. On the evidence, I think a prosecution under section 9 of the Motor Regulations Act must fail Where there is more than one explanation of doubtful circumstances, a criminal court is hound to adopt an explanation consistent with innocence. T, am trying to avoid anything that may ho quoted as a finding if there should be any subsequent civil proceedings arising out of this action. That is why I am not dealing* with the matter thoroughly and because it is very possible civil proceedings may be taken 1 do not wish to prejudice either side by expressing my opinion on the facts. I am constrained to limit my remarks to dealing with if solely on this information which 1 must dismiss.”