Motorist Gaoled for Intoxication

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 311, 23 March 1928, Page 1

Motorist Gaoled for Intoxication

MAORI CHIEFS DEATH NEGLIGENCE NOT PROVED (From Our Own Cori-espondcnt. 1 OPOTIKI. To-dav A collision between a motorlorry and a motor-car at Opotiki on March 9, when a Maori chief received such serious injuries that he died later, resulted in Police Court proceedings at Opotiki today, when the driver of the lorry, Frederick Charles Parkinson, was charged with being in a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor-vehicle, and also with negligent driving, thereby causing the death of Te Amora Tarau. Great interest was shown in the case. DETECTIVE McLEOD represent d the police, and Mr. E. Bunkall appeared for accused. Evidence was given by 21 witnesses. Detective McLeod stated that accused had seven or eight drinks on the day in question. When about a. mile from the town, accused, who was driving a lorry, collided with a car, which was on the proper side of the road. When accused was brought to the police station he showed signs o£ intoxication. Thomas Selwyn, the driver of the car, said that when about to pass the lorry the latter swerved, and crashed into the car. The lorry finished up on the grass on the wrong side of the road. Both vehicles had lights. He saw deceased lying in the middle of the road. John Patty, a passenger in the lorry, said they had several drinks during the afternoon. When witness left town he was hopelessly drunk, and did not remember anything. At one stage in witness's evidence the magistrate, Mr. S. L. Patterson, interrupted to say that witness was telling lies. THOUGHT HIM SOBER T. Hendry, licensee of the Opotiki Hotel, said he had drinks with accused, who took away a 10-gallon keg of beer. He thought Parkinson was sober and capable of driving a ihotorlorry. Dr. Budd said he examined deceased and Patty, who were both injured in the smash, and later examined Parklnson for sobriety. He would say that at the scene of the accident there was no evidence that accused was intoxicated. L. Horne, motor mechanic, gave evidence regarding the damaged vehicle, and said the potholes in the road were likely to break the front springs of the lorry. Marks in the road indicated that the lorry had apparently dragged before hitting the car. Sergeant McAllister and Constable Clist both gave evidence that accused was in a state of intoxication at the time of the accident and afterwards. William Burrett and G. Leggett considered accused was quite sober at the time of the accident. Dr. Candy, who also examined accused, said he found no evidence ot intoxication. Accused, who detailed his movements on the day of the accident, admitted having several light shandies and taking away the keg of beer. At the time of the accident he did not notice any car coming or see any lights. The accident happened so suddenly that he could not tell his experiences. He thought the accident was caused by the spring breaking. ACCIDENT NOT DUE TO DRINK The magistrate, summing up. said he considered the balance of evidence showed that the accident was caused by the breaking of the spring, therefore he dismissed the charge of negligence. On the other charge the evidence showed that accused was under the influence of liquor. In fixing the penalty, he said he took intd account the fact that accused was a married man, with 12 children, and also took into account the fact that the accident was not due to drink. Accused would be sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment, and his licence would be cancelled for 12 months unless accused took out a prohibition order within 14 days. The magistrate gave a general warning that theseoffences must be stopped, and he would not consider a fine unless there were exceptional circumstances.