MOTOR-RACE FATALITY

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 108, 28 July 1927, Page 1

MOTOR-RACE FATALITY

JUDGE CENSURES OFFICIALS ORIVER FINED £so= LICENCE CANCELLED pOTJND giiLty of negligently driving a motor-car and causing the death of Mrs. Elizabeth Spender of Kaitaia Fi h S { nhut eedlnS! V ° a the „ Ninet y Mile Beach, Victor Ferdinand Eisenhut was to-day fine £SO and his licence cancelled for two years by Mr. Justice Stringer cancelled for whirh'the ll^ commented on the inefficient manner in which the motor race meeting was conducted.

JN this instance the circum•Jst.iinoei are rather unusual,” said Mr. G. P. Finlay, addressing the jury the Ahipara motor Fatality case at the Supreme Court. In this case the motorists were all in an arena—an arena devoted to speed.”

The accused. Victor Ferdinand Eisenhut (Mr. Finlay and Mr. Guy) was found guilty by the jury. The evidence given was to the effect * r^ accused <* rove a car at a speed ot oO or 60 miles an hour on to the Ahipara Beach during the progress of a motor-car race on February 17, and collided with a racing car which was competing. As a result of the collision Mrs. Spender, a passenger in the racing car, was killed. SMASH WHILE “TUNING UP” The accused, a motor garage proprietor at Kaikohe, said that on approaching the course he believed himself to be well on the seaward side of the course. The accident occurred when the racing car suddenly turned round. He said it was customary to “tune up” cars on the course. At the time he was “tuning up” in preparation for a race later on in the programme. Mr. Justice Stringer, in summing up, emphasised the discretionary powers of juries in determining the degree of care which should be exercised by motor's. having regard for the circumstances. Was it reasonable, he asked, that accused should have approached the course and a crowd of people at 60 miles an hour? A verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to leniency, was returned after just over two hours’ retirement. Mr. Finlay said that, in addition to accused’s own ’injuries, he had also to face civil proceedings. The deceased’s husband was claiming £I,OOO compensation, the driver of the racing car £ 300, and another claimant £4O or £SO. Mr. S. L. Paterson, for the Crown, stated that the accused had apparently borne a good character. A letter from Inspector Norwood stated that he was an honest, sober, industrious man who had never been before the court previously. His Honour said he was always ready to consider a jury’s recommendation, and he realised that accused would no doubt suffer heavy material loss. Ho would consider the case and deal with prisoner in the morning. RACING OFFICIALS CENSURED In sentencing prisoner to-day his Honour said he quite agreed with the decision of the jury. He was quite satisfied Eisenhut was guilty of reckless driving and had disregarded the safety of other people. “If I were satisfied you were under the influence of liquor I should sentence you to a substantial term of imprisonment,”' continued his Honour, addressing prisoner, “but I am prepared to accept the evidence of witnesses that you were sober. “! think this race meeting was conducted in a very loose and inefficient way and it was natural there should be some laxity on the part of drivers.” In view of Eisenhut’s injuries and of the heavy damages claimed against him, and taking into account his previous good character and the jury’s recommendation to leniency, he would be dealt with lightly. A fine of £SO, with one week to pay, or in default, three months’ imprisonment was imposed. Further, his driving licence would be cancelled for a period of two years from the expiration of the present licensing year.