DRIVER’S RESPONSIBILITY
FAILURE OF HEADLIGHT Pres 3 Association NEW PLYMOUTH, Today. Whether it. was necessary to establish proof of guilty knowledge to justify a conviction for having only one headlight burning on a motor-car was the point discussed in the Police Court yesterday. The facts were that defendant, G. W. Scott, when driving, discovered that one light had failed suddenly. He endeavoured to stop at once, but before the car had stopped it was struck by a motor-cycle. Counsel contended that this was a case in which the motorist should receive consideration. He was not prepared to offer his client as a sacrifice to a test case on appeal. The magistrate; Air. R. W. Tate, said it was a pity that some wealthy man did not take the case to appeal for clarification. He had always held that the motor regulations threw absolute responsibility on the motorist and that it was not necessary to prove a guilty mind in the case before the court. Scott was convicted and ordered to pay costs, totalling £2 12s.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19300410.2.209
Bibliographic details
Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 944, 10 April 1930, Page 18
Word Count
175DRIVER’S RESPONSIBILITY Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 944, 10 April 1930, Page 18
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Sun (Auckland). You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in