Driver Loses Licence After Milford Smash

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 789, 9 October 1929, Page 11

Driver Loses Licence After Milford Smash

ALSO FINE OF £SO INTOXICATION CHARGE Following hip arrest after two cars, one of which he was driving, had collided near Milford on October 1, William Thomas Rowlands was fined £SO at the Police Court this morning for being intoxicated in charge of a motor-car. His driving licence was cancelled for 12 months.

Rowlands, an insurance agent aged 43, of Belmont, was represented by Mr. Greville, who pleaded not guilty on his behalf. Alice Steine, a married woman of Milford, described the collision between her car and that of accused at the corner of Kitchener Road and Saltburn Road. Witness had swerved to try and avoid accused as fie came out of the side road, but he appeared to lose all control of his car and smashed into witness’s car, a light machine, which was badly damaged. Mrs. Steine was of the opinion that accused had stepped on his accelerator instead of on the brake. Her little girl had been injured and had to be taken to the doctor as the result of being cut by broken glass. “I had a few words with accused,” added the witness. “He was unsteady on | his feet and did not seem to me to i be in a responsible condition.” j Constable Wood, who had been called to the scene of the accident shortly after it happened, considered that the marks of tyres plainly showed that Rowland’s car had rammed the other machine. Witness had noticed that accused was under the influence of liquor. The man had at first denied having a drink so witness walked him |to the gate. He was unsteady and smelled strongly of liquor. His speech was muddied. Finally he admitted that he had had two whiskies. “I said that I would have to lock him up,” continued the constable. “He asked for another chance, but I said, ‘No, I have had to speak to you about your drinking habits before.’ ” Sergeant O’Brian, of the Devonport police, commenced to give a description of the tests to which accused had been subjected at the station, but was interrupted by the magistrate. “You are a man of experience; what was his condition?” asked Mr. Hunt. The Sergeant: He was drunk. Another police witness was of the opinion that Rowlands was more drunk than intoxicated. Sub-Inspector McCarthy went into the box and said that there was no doubt that the man was intoxicated. He had gone in to see him in his cell when Constable Wood brought him over from Devonport. “There is certainly a preponderance of police evidence,” admitted Mr. Greville, opening his case, “but I have independent witnesses who will say that there was no doubt the man the man at the time of the accident. Most of the evidence given by the nolice deals with the ensitinn anmo

time after the accident.” “VERY EXCITED” Put in the box by counsel, Rowlands admitted that he had four drinks on the day of the accident. There were two whiskies in the morning and two “nips” of ale immediately after lunch. The man said that he had been ill during the week-end, and the shock had upset him. Rowlands urged that he had been driving for 20 years, and this was his second accident, the first having taken place some time ago. Cross-examined by the sub-inspector, Rowlands admitted that it was after his first accident that the constable had warned him about drink. He was not, however, a drinking man, and rarely touched liquor. Among witnesses called by the defence was Miles Edward Thompson, a land agent, who reported the accident to the police at accused’s request. He had detected no signs of liquor on the man, though he was undoubtedly excited. “Fortunately nobody was badly injured; this might have been a very serious accident,” commented Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., imposing the double penalty. Mr. Greville asked for time to pay, pointing out that accused had a wife and family to provide for. “He can sell his car then, as he won’t be needing it for a year,” answered the magistrate. Rowlands was given a week in which to find the money.