CASE DISMISSED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 60, Issue 251, 31 July 1940, Page 6

CASE DISMISSED

ALLEGED INTOXICATION IN CAR.

CHARGE AGAINST YOUNG MAN.

GIVEN BENEFIT OF A DOUBT. On remand from last week, Henry Eric Lamb, a labourer, appeared in the Ashburton (Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr G. Kelly, J.P., and Mr E. H. Orr, J.P., on a charge of haying been found in a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor car. Through Mr C. G. de C. Drury he pleaded not guilty. Constable Sayer said that at 1.15 a.m. on July 24 he saw a man get out of a car In Havelock Street. He staggered and got back into the car. Witness went to the car where he could smell liquor on accused’s breath. Accused refused to give up the car keys and denied that he had had any liquor. He refused to say whose car it was. The car battery was too low to start the engine, and the starting handle would not fit. The car was then started by pushing. It was an hour before a. doctor could be got to the station to examine accused, who was intoxicated and adopting a hostile attitude. Stout and ale bottles and a glass were found in the car.

To Mr Drury: Accused’s breath smelt strongly of liquor till he tightly closed his mouth. The doctor’s report was not sufficient to shake his opinion that accused was intoxicated when he was arrested. Accused was not drunk. Constable T. Harris said he saw accused at the watchhouse, and accused said he had had four glasses of ale during the evening. He was given a test and he performed it reasonably w r ell. Ho was in a mild state of intoxication half an hour after he was arrested. He got a bit mixed in his words and sometimes called the constable “doctor.’’ Witness jyould not have arrested accused at time he (witness) saw him. In the Ijjox, accused said ho had one bottle of |tout in the car. He spent the evonfg with his brother, who “shouted* from two bottles of beer. Witness was not intoxicated. He left his brother’s place at 12.30 and went to the pi& cart in Havelock Street, where he had supper. He did not know what the constable wanted till they got to the Police Station. He had been liable to be shaken by excitement since he had a serious accident a few months ago.

To Senior-Sergeant J. F. Cleary: He denied that he went to a sly-grog shop in Havelock Street after he left his brother’s place. He was sober when he got to the pie cart. (Mr Drury entered an objection to questioning of accused by the SeniorSergeant regarding the presence of liquor in the accident in which accused was involved some months ago. Accused said there was no suggestion of liquor in that case, but admitted that the licensee of an hotel in Methven had been convicted of supplying liquor to him just- before the accident.

W. J. Lamb, brother of accused, said that accused showed no signs of liquor when he left witness’s house.

Ernest Hayman said that accused had behaved rationally in the pie cart. His mouth had always been in the right place and he had not spilt any peas on the counter. Ho did not stagger.

Senior-Sergeant Cleary: “Did you say to a man “That young fellow was well sozzled”?

Mr Drury: Are you calling these people ? Senior-Sergeant Cleary: I am going to ask this question. I am entitled to ask it.

Mr Drury: This is most improper. I’m staggered. The Senior-Sergeant: I am going to ask the question and Mr Drury can take it as far as he likes later, but I am entitled to ask this to test the witness’s veracity. Mr Drury: This is terrible. I never heard of such a thing. Dr. N. E. H. Fulton gave evidence of his examination of accused an hour after his arrest.

James H. Tansey said he had lent his car to accused for the afternoon and evening and the beer and lemonade bottles found in the car were probly his. (Mr Drury said the onus was on the police to prove intoxication, and in this case there is more than a doubt—

Senior-Sergeant: I must object. You can’t address the Court in this way. Mr Drury said it was cardinal principle that evidence should not be slyly introduced as had been done by the prosecution, apparently to boost up a weak case. However, lie was content to leave the case to the Court. The Justices retired for a few minutes to consider the case.

Accused was. found not guilty and the case dismissed, the Court stating that there was an element of doubt.