FATAL COLLISION.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1921, Page 6

FATAL COLLISION.

MOTOR CAR AND A GIG. MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE. HEARING BEFORE SUPREME COURT. / A charge of manslaughter, which was described by Mr. Justice Recd as presenting some curious features, was before the New Plymouth Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The accused was a youqg man named James Albert Officer, residing in the T uglewood district, and he was charged with driving a horse an<l trap at night without lights, on the wrong side of the road, whereby a collision occurred with a motor car in which Percy J. C. Sutton was a passenger, and as the result of which collision Sutton sustained injuries .fom v hich he died. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr. L. M. Moss, and• the case was conducted by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. H. Weston).

The following jury was empanelled: H. A- Cholwell, H. Pennington. T. M. ' Avery, Fred Newell, H. H. Mace, H. i Inch, C. V. S. Beach, G. A. Clark, W. J. Belcher, A. S. Brooker, A. Harrison, IL A. Jury. DETAILS OF THE ACCIDENT. Particulars of the case were outlined by Mr. Weston. He said Sutton was a hank clerk at Stratford. On July 16 he and a friend uamed Death had proceeded to New Plymouth from Stratford Io see the football match (Taranaki —Springboks). Whether the result of elation at the success of the Taranaki team, or as a consequence of some jollification, they missed the train, fortunately —or unfortunately as it turned out—they were able to get a ride back in a motor ear owned by A. Barlow. They started back some time about a quarter to eight. The car was a tv. oseater Dodge and Barlow was driving, Death sat next to him, and Sutton was on the left side. Barlow was perfectly sober, but the two boys had had some drinks. It was a windy, snowery night. Barlow had been driving a car for seven or eight years and, as could be understood, his business as a stock dealer, would take him over all kinds of roads. The jury would, therefore, be inclined to believe as correct Barlow’s statement that he was an expert driver. The scene of the accident was a few chains on the Stratford side of rue junction between the Dudley and Mountain roads. Barlow was going along at an average pace z of 25 miles an hour, and both lights on the ear were burning brightly, showing up for a distance of some twenty-five yards before the car- Until the accident happened the car was “being driven on the middle of the asphalt. ' THE DRIVER’S VERSION.

The driver’s evidence was to the effect that suddenly, and without any warning, he ran into something —for tne moment- he did not know what it was. The object was on the left-hand side of the car, and Barlow swerved to the right-hand side, almost touching the clay bank on the side of the road, and then turning back on to the asphalt. Barlow alighted and walked hack to where he met the obstruction, and found a trap with no horse. The left wheel was seriously damaged and the shafts were facing in the direction of Stratford, showing that the trap had turned completely round. The left wheel and mudguards of Barlow’s car were also badly damaged. On the scene of the accident, said counsel, Barlow found two men. these being accused, Officer, and a companion called J.ini#. Accused was first one to whom Barlow spoke, and his first question to Officer was: “What were you z doing on your wrong side, and where were your lights?” Accused replied that he had no lights. On going back to the car Barlow learned that Sutton had been injured, and as the machine was still in running order they proceeded on to Stratford. Sutton was removed to hospital, but unfortunately died some days afterwards, having sustained severe injuries, either from part of the car or the shaft of the trap. Air. Weston said the Crown contended that Officer’s duty was to have lights and to keep* on his right side, and that either one of these omissions‘to observe the legal duty was the cause of the accident. If the jury found that Officer was on liis right side, but that the accident would not have occurred if he had had lights, then they were asked to enter a conviction foi manslaughter. DECEASED’S INJURIES. The first witness was Charles 11. Lawn, office engineer, Public Works Department, Stratford, who gave particulars of the locality of the accident from plans he had made as the result of an inspection of the site in company with the police- ✓

In the' course of cross-examination, witness said he coyld not remember the width of the road at certain points on the plan, and at counsel’s suggestion His Honor agreed that witness should make a further inspection of the locality to-day for the purpose of taking further measurements. Dr. W. P. Gordon deposed to being called to see Sutton at the Empire Hotel, Stratford, on the night of the accident. He said Sutton was suffering from extensive injuries to the mouth and throat, and severe shock. From the examination it appeared that some sharp object had struck him, and it was possible that the shaft of the gig could have caused the injuries. He saw Barlow, and in t witness’ opinion he was -•ober. Neither did deceased have any signs of liquor about him. An operation was performed on the 17 th and later an abscess on the neck was opened. The deceased made some progress after this, but on the 28th had two severe heart Attacks, and died on the 29th./ Cross-examined: Deceased died from haemorrhage and want of nutrition. He did not think it would have assisted Sutton’s recovery if he had been senr. to the public hospital, where an X-ray examination could have been made. The case for the Crown was not concluded when the Court rose till this morning.