ROAD DEATHS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 4 May 1939, Page 8

ROAD DEATHS

CHARGES AGAINST LORRY DRIVER PRESENTATION OF CASE FOR DEi-ENCE. SUBMISSIONS TO JURY. (By Telegraph—press Association.) DUNEDIN, May 3. The trial of William Alexander Tait, aged 29, Oamaru, on charges arising out of a' fatal accident near Mosgiel on the night of April 15, when Neil Harris and Vera Jessie Thomson were killed, was continued in the Supreme Court today before Mr Justice Blair. When the Court rose at 5.40 p.m., counsel for the defence, Mr J. G. Warringten, had just concluded his address to the jury, which lasted an hour and 20 minutes. His honour will sum up tomorrow morning.

The Crown Prosecutor, Mr F. B. Adams, applied after the conclusion of tne evidence against accused for an amendment to the charges, adding a fourth count to the indictment as follows: “That accused failed to ascertain that he had injured Vera Jessie Thomsen.”

The greater part of the morning was occupied in hearing the evidence of Allen McKerrcw, jockey, who was in tne lorry with accused at the' time of the accident. He stated that he would net describe accused as drunk. -He would just say he had had a few drinks.

Addressing the jury, Mr Warrington said the Crown’s evidence showed that both deceased were beyond human aid after the accident. It was quite impossible for accused to have helped them in any way, and ho was,- therefore, entitled to acquittal. Concerning the fourth charge, counsel suggested that it was reasonable for accused to presume that there was cnly eno person on a cycle. "The second charge contains two essential points,” Mr Warrington continued, “negligence and that negligence alone caused the two deaths.' The first count implies, first, intoxication, secondly, an act of omission, and thirdly, causing death. If you decide that accused was not negligent, you must acquit him on both counts. If you decide that there was negligence, but that that negligence did not cause the deaths, you must still acquit him on both counts. If you find that his negligence caused tne deaths, you must of course, convict him on the second count, so that it becomes necessary to decideDas a major point, the question of negligence.” If the jury thought accused negligent in driving in the middle of the road, before it could say that that negligence had caused the deaths of Harris and Miss Thomson, it had to be sure that the cyclist himself nad not been negligent. If it reached the decision that accused was not negligent, it had to acquit him on both counts, because the first count indicated that his drunkenness had resulted in negligence. Council concluded by referring to ihe question of drink, submitting that five medium glasses of beer, which accused haci had spread between tea time and 8 p.m., could not have indicated drunkenness at 11.30 p.m., the time of the accident.