INTOXICATED MOTORIST

Wairarapa Times-Age, 20 October 1938, Page 9

INTOXICATED MOTORIST

FEATHERSTON RESIDENT FINED.

CASE HEARD IN CARTERTON.

(“Times-Age” Special.)

At the Carterton S.M. Court yesterday before Mr H. P. Lawry, Henry Buck was charged by the police with having been intoxicated while in charge of a motor car. Mr J. W. Card, of Featherston, appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Constable Robertson said that at 4.30 o’clock on Tuesday afternoon he had occasion to arrest accused, who appeared to be under the influence of liquor. He rang up two doctors but they were out of town, but later Dr Budd examined accused and gave a written statement to the effect that accused was intoxicated. Witness said accused admitted having had eight whiskies, but later reduced the number from eight to four. Mr Card said that accused admitted that he had had five whiskies and two beers, but he was a man who carried liquor well and although he had the amount stated he would not be drunk. He generally was sober after having consumed half a dozen drinks, but was always able to take care of himself. He had a couple of drinks at one hotel and then drove to the Taratahi. After having a further drink or two he drove the car to Hughan’s garage, but pulled up at the pedestrian crossing. He submitted that accused having taken his dental plates from his mouth and the fact that he was leaning over the car gave him the appearance of being drunk. Mr Buck had been driving cars for 36 years and had never had an accident, showing how careful he was.

H. M. Catt, motor mechanic at Hughan’s Garage, gave evidence that accused came into the garage at about 2 o'clock. He did not consider Buck was under the influence of liquor. Witness saw him again when he came back later in the afternoon and still did not consider he was drunk although he smelt of liquor. Sergeant Doggett: “You say he smelt of liquor, but he seemed quite all right and fit to drive a car.” —He did not know what manner of a driver he was, but witness considered him capable of managing the car. He did not think he was the worse for drink. To Mr Card: Defendant seemed to him to be all right and witness considered that he was not the worse for drink.

C. R. Skippage, paperhanger and builder, Featherston, said that he drove up from Featherston with Buck and others. No liquor was taken between Featherston and Carterton. When he did have a drink in Carterton he tnought that he had whiskies. Witness was with defendant most of the time and went to Hughan’s Garage with him. Buck drove the car and stopped on the pedestrian line. If Buck had been the worse for liquor witness certainly would not have ridden in the car with him. He would say that accused was not intoxicated, but would not deny that he had had liquor. Sergeant Doggett: “You say defendant was not drunk. When do you think a man is drunk?” —“When he is wobbling. I have known defendant for many years and had always found him to be of temperate habits.” Mr Card: “It is 25 to 30 years since Buck was before the Court.”

Sergeant Doggett: “A person is certainly a menace to the road if drunk in charge of a car.” Accused was fined £l5 and costs. He agreed to take out a prohibition order against himself.