INTOXICATION CHARGE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 23 February 1939, Page 8

INTOXICATION CHARGE

MASTERTON MAN BEFORE COURT TECHNICAL POINT RAISED. MR LA WRY RESERVES DECISION. Whether a man can be found guilty of being intoxicated in charge of a motor-car when he does not have the keys in his possession, but has a duplicate set inside his house, is a question to be decided by Mr H. P. La wry, S.M. Joseph James Ewington was charged in the Masterton Magistrate’s Court today with being intoxicated while in charge of a car. In reserving his decision, Mr Lawry said the evidence showed that Ewinglon was intoxicated, that he was asleep in the car and that another man had taken the keys away with him. Ewington, however, had another set in his house and he would have to see what the law was on that point. He would give his decision next Court day. At the outset, Mr C. C. Marsack said that while he was entering a plea of not guilty, the facts that would be outlined by the police would be admitted. The only question was whether Ewington could be technically in charge of the car when arrested.

Senior-Sergeant G. A. Doggett said that on the night of February 12, Constable Cross noticed a car parked on the left-hand side of the road in Chapel Street, near where Ewington lived. The lights were full on and defendant was asleep in the front seat, When wakened up, Ewington said "ne had been driving the car. He appeared dazed and his speech was blurred. He .said he had had a heavy day and had been to Wellington. He got out of the ear awkwardly and he smelt of liquor. When he was taken to the police station, a doctor certified that he was under the influence of liquor and not fit to drive a car. That was at 4.20 a.m. Mr Marsack said he could not take exception to anything the Senior-Ser-geant had said. He agreed that there was a definite onus on the defence to show that Ewington was not in charge of the car. The doctor said that Ewington was mentally alert when examined, but the trouble was muscular co-or-dination. On his return from Wellington on the day in question, Ewington had gone to a friend’s home in Carterton to deliver a trophy. He had taken a few drinks and found that they upset him, his health not being of the best. His friends suggested that he should wrap himself up and let Mr Allen drive him to Masterton. That course was followed, Allan leaving the car outside Ewington’s house. He turned off the lights and the wireless and took the ignition keys with him. Ewington said he would go for a walk round the block to clear his head before he went inside. When Ewington came back to the car he did not feel too well and he again sat in the car, where he fell asleep and in doing so he must have accidentally switched on the lights.

The question for the Magistrate to decide was whether Ewington was in charge of the car. He submitted that to be in charge of a car there must be an element, of control. That was an essential feature of being in charge. In this case it could not be held that Ewington was in charge of the ear because he had no means by which he could drive it. The car was actually or potentially dangerous and it was about as lethal as a boy’s scooter. Mr Lawry said Ewington was in charge of the body of the car and it was a question whether he was in charge of the engine of the car. In evidence Ewington said he had another sc + of car keys inside his house, but he had only found them the next day after some difficulty. He admitted to the Senior-Sergeant that he had a previous conviction for intoxication while in charge of a car. Hector Allan and J. O. Peters, companions of Ewington on the night of the arrest, said that the cocktails that Ewington had drunk appeared to make him ill rather than intoxicated. Mr Lawry reserved his decision.