FATAL COLLISION.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 December 1921, Page 7

FATAL COLLISION.

MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE. . 1 THE EVIDENCE COMPLETED. FINAL STAGES TO-DAY. The Supreme Court at New Plymouth was occupied yesterday with the continu- , ation of the hearing of the charge of manslaughter against James A. Officer. The information was laid as the result of an accident which happened on the night of July 16, when a gig driven by Officer and a motor car in charge of A. Barlow came into collision near the Dudley Road. A passenger in the car, named Sutton, died as the result of the injuries received on that occasion. Mr. L. M. Moss represented accused, and Mr. C. H. Weston' conducted the case for the Crown. Before proceeding to call further evidence, the Crown Prosecutor said he desired to correct an impression he had given that the night was entirely dark. He was now informed that there was a moon, though it was obscured. The next witness was Robert Barlow, licensee of the Imperial Hotel, jvho said that he saw his brother (A. Barlow) at the hotel between 5 and 6 o’clock on the night of the accident. He was then perfectly sober. Mr. Moss: He did not remember having a drink with his brother at half-past seven the same night. He could not say how many drinks his brother had that afternoon, nor did he remember with whom he was drinking. Witness did not know the deceased Sutton or Death. His brother usually drank small ‘’shandies.” EVIDENCE OF BARLOW. Alfred Barlo .’armer and stock dealer, said that after me football match on July 16 he proceeded to his brother’s hotel and stayed there for about three hours. He met Sutton and Death in the street and the latter asked for a lift home in the car as they, missed the train. He agreed to take them. They were not sober, but could not be called drunk. By the time they started for home they were alright. Personally he had only four or five drinks; he was drinking bottle shandies. They left New Plymouth about 7.30, witness driving, Death next to him, and Sutton on the left hand side. The fact that there were three persons in a two-seater car did not hinder his driving, as it would easily hold three. The weather conditions were not too good, being windy and showery.. The car was in good order, and he was travelling at about 25 miles an hour. Describing events after leaving Inglewood Barlow said that just when they had passed the Dudley Road crossing he collided with a vehicle which was on the left side. He pulled the car up in about a chain, and found that the gig was somewhat damaged and the two occupants were there, one of them being in the act of getting off the I ground. In reply to witness he said jhe had no lights. Witness had been driv- [ ing in the middle of, the asphalt, and though there was a slight bend in the road at this point it did not have the effect of i making him hug the right side of the road. The first he saw of the gig was when the collision happened. He could not have turned to the left but swerved away to the right and come back on the road within two lengths of the car. All the injury to his car was on the left side.

To His Honor: Before he actually struck the gig he did not pick it up by the aid of the lights of his car. It would be hard to pick it up on that side. "A NICE MESS.” Continuing, he said he could not say to which man he spoke on the night of the accident; it might have been accused or his friend. The one who replied did not seem to blame witness for the accident, and witness told him there was sure to be trouble over it. The two men accompanied him back to the car, and he found that Sutton was badly injured. Witness remarked to accused and his friend that they had got him into a nice mess. He got into his car, and finding it was alright decided to take Sutton into Stratford. He only had one headlight, however, as the other one bad been damaged. There was also a hole through the side curtain on the back portion of the car. The train (going towards Inglewood) had passed just about a chain and a half before the accident. The fights were burning before the accident. A suggestion was made that the jury should inspect the car and an adjournment was made for this purpose. The car showed various evidences of the collision, the front and rear mudguards on the near side being badly dented, and the stanchion for supporting the hood was broken. When the court resumed Mr. Moss proceeded to cross-examine Barlow. Witness said a train passed about the time of the accident. He did not, remember hear- 1 ing it whistle, nor could he tell whether it was passenger or goods. Counsel suggested that if the gig was where Barlow suggested the lights of the car would have shown it up on this bend in the road. Witness said he could not say whether this was so. He denied seeing the gig before the collision, or that the car left the road till after the smash. The gig was practically on the asphalt on the right, hand side (its correct side going towards Inglewood). Officer was just alongside the gig. There was no wiper on the windscreen of the car. In turning he put the wheels at full-lock, went within two feet of the bank, and swerved on to the asphalt, pulling up in two lengths. In reply to counsel, witness affirmed that he could drive the car at 25 miles an hour, and turn it into full-lock without sustaining any injury to the tyres. He denied that he was watching the train instead of keeping an eye on the road. He had only one small accident previously in driving cars. WITNESS CROSS-EXAMINED. Did you not run into the Salvation Army meeting ring in Stratford one night?— No. I would not have been here if I had. Do you remember being convicted of driving in a manner dangerous to the public?—l was only fined £2 9s. Is it not possible that on this night also you were not driving as carefully as you might have been ?—Well, I expect I would not have got there if I had been. You said you had four or five drinks. I put it to you that there were more. —I am certain there wasn’t. You are a pretty experienced drinker. Don’t you think the occasion of Taranaki drawing with the Springboks was worthy of more than that ? —No. Re-examined by Mr. Weston, witness said that the conviction against him which had been referred to was the result of his grazing another car on one occasion in Stratford when he was having bit of fun with some friends prior to going into camp. The second occupant of the car, Frederick A. Death, said that after the football match he had had a few drinks, but was alright when leaving New Plymouth in the car in company with Barlow and Sutton. His evidence as to the accident were mainly on the lines of the driver’s version. He estimated the speed at from 20 to 25 miles an hour. To Mr. Moss: He admitted that when he

got into the car he was not quite sober, but he was a long way from being drunk. They did not have any tea that night, and were going to wait till they got back to Stratford. It w r as not because he had to go and have a sleep, for he was quite capable of eating. To His Honor: His estimate of the speed was not formed as the result of seeihg the speedometer about the time of the accident; it was merely a guess. Further evidence as to the measurements and camber of the road at the site of the accident was given by Chas. H. Lawn, recalled from the previous day. HEARD A LOUD NOISE. Henry J. Stimpson, surfaceman, residing at Dudley Road, Inglewood, said that on the night fo July 16, he was outside his cottage waiting for the train to go past. It was approaching at the time when he heard a loud noise, and proceeding on to the road he saw Barlow standing there, and noticed Officer lying on the side of the road. He also noticed the gig and the car. He enquired who was the person lying down, and Barlow said it was Officer and that he would be alright in a few minutes. The gig was 6 feet on the Stratford side of his gate facing Stratford, and the outer w’heel was just on the edge of the asphalt. There were no spokes in the left wheel, these being scattered for half a chain, and the rim was over near witness’ gate. Barlow said to Officer: “It’s a devil of a mess you have got me into now,” to which the latter replied: “To hell with it; you were on your wrong side of the road.” Officer also said: “I had to pull the wrong rein, as you were bearing down on me.” To Mr. Moss: The night was blowing a gale. If the gig lamps went out it would be impossible to re light them in the wind. His Honor: That surely cannot be correct. You can always get enough shelter.

In the course of further cross-examina-tion, the witness said the night was light and he could recognise Barlow. They also had sufficient light to find Officer's hat. If the gig was in the position which Barlow stated it to be he thought the lights of the car should have picked up the vehicle. He was also of opinion that if the gig was hit where Barlow said it was the vehicle could not possibly have been in the position in which it was afterwards found.

Another witness, who arrived on the scene shortly after the accident, was John Stevens, farmer. He said he remembered the car passing him on the road just previously. It was going at quite an ordinary pace.

In reply to Mr. Moss, witness said he was accustomed to handling gig lamps. If the lights went out on such a night as the one in question he did not think he would have attempted to relight because there was a big wind blowing. He was able to light a cigarette, however, after getting shelter behind a bank. Sergeant Dale, stationed at Stratford, deposed as to making enquiries concerning the accident after having been informed of the occurrence by Dr. Gordon on the morning of July 17 (the day following). He visited the scene of the smash, and had also taken possession of the shafts and lamps from accused’s gig. One of the lamps was damaged, probably as the result of the accident, and would not burn. To Mr. Moss: The first occasion he went over the locality he was accompanied by Barlow, who pointed out the marks. This concluded the case for the Crown. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. The case for the defence was then reviewed by Air. Moss. The collision, he said, was not due to t.he negligence of Officer, as had been suggested, but was the result of what was either an accident as far as he was concerned or to the negligence of another person. No doubt His Honor would direct the jury that it was no defence for Officer to say that Barlow as weP as himself was negligent, for if Officer was negligent in taking such care as he should have done then he was guilty, no matter whether Barlow might be equally liable. Counsel urged, however, that the evidence for the defence, and, indeed, the weakness of the case already presented must show that the suggestion that the gig was on the wrong side of the road could not be sustained. It was a physical impossibility. Officer was picked up in a dazed condition somewhere about 33 feet from where the -gig was supposed to have been found, and counsel said it was remarkable that accused had not been run over by the car after it swerved round.

Officer and Linn were steady young men, both quite sober, and there was no suggestion that anything -had occurred to upset their normal state. It was frankly admitted that the accused’s vehicle had no lights when the collision occurred. This in itself was not conclusive and did not entitle the jury to come to the conclusion that the absence of lights was the cause of the accident. They did have lights up to within a quarter of a mile of the accident. Accused also had plenty of warning that the car was coming and saw it, and the Crown must establish the suggestion that Officer, for a distance of two or three hundred yards, deliberately drove into th’e face of an approaching car—which, of course, was ridiculous. Officer and Linn could see the reflection from the lights of Barlow’s car long before they saw the lights and pulled on to their proper side. They proceeded along on the edge of the asphalt on their proper side and Officer noticed the car coming down the centre of the asphalt for a certain distance and then the car seemed to bear towards them into the gig. Just at that moment a train passed, going to Inglewood, and whistled when the car and gig were about two chains apart. It was suggested that Barlow, instinctively, took his eyes off the road to look at the train and that when his gaze returned to the road he saw the gig right in front of them. It was strange how the injuries were all on the left hand side of the car, and this fact might betaken at first to indicate that Officer was on the wrong side of the road. On the contrary it proved that Barlow came right over on to his wrong side of the road. Counsel thought another strong point was that immediately after the accident Linn went to the police officer at Inglewood. He suggested that this was not the act of a guilty man. The constable was asked to go out to the scene, and he enquired as to whether anyone was injured. At that time it was not thought Sutton was badly injured and Linn replied there was not. The constable therefore did not go out; but if he had gone t'he defence would have had definite evidence regarding the marks of the vehicles. TUi-'. O. CUP ANTS OF THE TRAP. The first witness for the defence was Charles Diamond, stable-keeper at Inglewood. who deposed to lighting the lamps on Officer's gig prior to the accused leaving Inglewood. The Jamps were in good burning order. Accused’s companion, Bertrand N. Linn, said that on the afternoon of July 16 they wpre in New Plymouth. During the day neither he nor Linn had any drink. That night Officer and he left the former’s home at Durham Road en route to Inglewood. They had two lights on the gig: these went out about a quarter of a mile back from the asphalt portion of the road where t'he mishap oc- j curred. No attempt was made to re-

light the lamps, and he did not think it would, have been possible to do so as there was a strong wind. On the road between Officer’s ‘bouse and the asphalt —a distance of about two miles —they met no traffic. They had got about two chains along that road when he saw the reflection of the lights of a car leaving Inglewood. Both wheels of the gig were running along on the asphalt, and they met the car coming- down the centre of the road. Near the railway gate the car swerved into their side, and he thought the reason for this was that the driver may have been looking at the train which was passing at the time. They saw Constable Longbottom after t-'he accident, this being on the advice of Officer. Witness was the one who saw the constable, ‘but the latter did not think it necessary to -go out as no one was hurt.

Accused’s evidence was mainly on the lines of the facts previously disclose 1 about the accident. His opinion was that when Barlow got within meeting distance of them he apparently noticed the gig and got flustered pulling over on his wrong side. To Mr. Weston: The light on Linn’s side of the gig was the first to go out.. and almost immediately the light on witness’ side was also extinguished. He did not know whether it was the bumping road or t’he wind, but he remarked to Linn that it was not worth lighting up again.

To His Honor: When he saw Barlow was coming on his side the horse was running along the asphalt and at least half the trap. The cars usually took that bend in a gradual sweep. His Honor: Therefore you risked everything on Barlow seeing you?—Yes. Knowing that you could have avoided the risk of his not seeing you by drawing further over? —In any case there would not have been room for two vehicles to pass.

Mr. Moss submitted that His Honor could direct that the absence of lights was not sufficient to find the accused guilty of manslaughter. He quoted a similar ease -in Christchurch in which Mr. Justice Adams directed that if the accused was found to have been driving on his right side he must be acquitted. His Honor reserved this point and said he would put a direction to the jury in writing. Counsel for the defence addressed the jury at length, reviewing the facts of the’ case, and he urged strongly that the weight of evidence and credibility was on the side of accused.

’ The Crown Prosecutor reminded the jury that they were really the judges and that their decision might rule the conduct of thousands. In spite of the fact that Mr. Moss had said all that could be brought forward in favor of accused, he was arguing a hopeless case. His Honor intimated that -he would sum up to-day when the Court resumes at ten o’clock.