MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 182, 1 August 1923, Page 7

MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE.

DEATH OF MRS. BBABPIEB. DEFENCE DENIES NEGLIGENCE. The hearing of the charge of manslaughter against Sydney Murphy (Mr. Leary) a taxi-driver, arising out of a collision on May 8 between his car and a pedestrian in Upper Queen Street, near Dixieland, was concluded at the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Herdman to-day. The pedestrian, Mrs. Elizabeth Sharpies, sustained shocking injuries and died the following evening. The jury retired to consider its verdict just before the luncheon adjournment. Fifteen witnesses for the Crown repeated their Lower Court evidence yesterday afternoon and this morning. People -who were in the vicinity detailed the crash and the finding of the body On the road. Others who had seen the car passing down the street estimated its speed. The damages and indentations found on accused's motor were referred to by Francis Oadman. The centre of the radiator was 'bent back about one inch. The bar 'between the two head lamps and the number plate on the bar were also bent back. Cross-examined, witness said the damage to the radiator could possibly have been caused by striking a heavy person when travelling at 15 to 20 miles an hour. He considered 25 miles an hour a reasonable speed at which to come down Queen Street provided the road was reasonably clear, as it sometimes was even in the daytime.

Constable George Robertson, who saw the actual collision, described it. Mrs. Sharpies was struck 'by the radiator and pushed along the road a couple of yards ■by the front wheel, then both sets of wheels went over her. To his Honor, witness said he heard the crash 58 yards away; the man in the car must have heard it.

Detectives ©"Sullivan, Barling, and Senior-Detective Cummings recounted interviews with the accused, and McQuoid, the man who was in the car with him, and the examination of accused's motor car. The first interviews resulted In a denial of being in the vicinity, but subsequently Murphy admitted coming down Queen Street at the time of the fatality, but disavowed any knowledge of an accident.

Cross-examined by Mr. Leary, witness said that Murphy told the truth before McQuoid. McQuoid was doing the best he could to set up an alibi for Murphy. The latter evidenced concern, and frequently inquired as to the victim's condition, "which was more than McQuoid did." Murphy bore a good character. Re-examined by Mr. Meredith, the detective said that 'both Murphy and McQuoid told the same "tale" at first, and (Mrs. Cofbett, McQuoid"s sister, with whom Murphy boarded, -bore them out. It was not until the accused was told that the constable had recognised the number of the car that he admitted being in the street at the time of the fatality. Thie concluded the case for the Crown. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr. Leary intimated that he did not intend to call any evidence, and he proceeded, to address the jury. There we«~ 'aome unfortunate facts about the case that had been made for the Crown. Some not very veracious accounts had been given of the events of the day, but whatever Murphy said or did after the accident did not, argued counsel, affect the question—Was he negligent before the accident? In the ordinary probability a certain proportion of accidents was a necessary consequence of traffia that moved faster than a walking pace. The essence of a manslaughter charge was negligent killing of a fellow being. Discussing the actual negligence, counsel referred to the contention that the horn wtfS not working at the time of the collision. Aβ a matter of fact it was Murphy who pointed out, at an examination of the car after the accident, that the horn was not -working. Counsel submitted that it was extremely doubtful that the horn was not working before the accident, but that the accident had deranged it. The Crown's case was that the accused wa§ travelling'at a dangerously excessive speed. For evidence there w»e an expert witness that the injuries might have been caused by a car travelling at a epeed of 15 miles an hour; the statemeat of another witness that it was travelling fast, but at a pace at iwhich she had seen other cars coming down the street. Counsel contended that the car was travelling at about 20 miles an hour. The evidence of other witnesses as to the speed counsel criticised as indecisive. Aβ a further argument against excessive epeed he said that the body was not carried along with the car, but fell almost at once. ' It was not unlikely that the impact should he heard 150 yards away. Mr. Leary referred to the fact tnat within a year there had been » previous accident at the same spot. Was it not possible that there might be come peculiarity about it? He would submit that the explanation would be found In the evidence that had been adduced by the Crown, namely the intensely strong light which came from Dixieland on the eye level. What the Crown had adduced in regard to the road being well illuminated -was, he would submit, proof thai it was a death trap to pedestrians. Mr. Leary was proceeding to argue that the primary and efficient cause of death was the woman's own negligence, when his Honor interposed that contributory negligence was no mitigation in charges of manslaughter.

Mr. Leary retorted that contributory negligence imputed negligence on the part of the accused which he had attempted to show there had not been.

His Honor: "There is no evidence to show that the woman was guilty of neglect."

Mr. Leary contended that he could draw such deductions from the evidence. It was quite possible that the unfortunate woman in a state of meditation took a sudden turn and attempted to cross the road right in front of the oar. That was an exigency no motorist could be held responsible for. His Honor: "There is no evidence of it, but I will not interrupt you any more." HIS HONOR SUMS UP.

Hie Honor, in summing up, said it was a comparatively simple case. The accused in driving down Queen Street, a popular thoroughfare, was bound to exercise proper care in two ways—first by travelling at a reasonable speed, and secondly by keeping a proper lookout. In a growing city like Auckland a driver of any vehicle must exercise care, and if he did not do so and some one was killed then he brought himself within the penalties of the law. His Honor characterised the evidence of the medical men as most important. The injuries were described as shocking, and the jury was entitled to infer from their gravity that the woman must have been jrtruck bar some vehicle which was mov-.

lag at a very high speed- Whether this ear wae travelling at an excessive speed was not, however, the only question. Evidence was to the effect that it waa possible to easily see anyone crossing tie street in front of Dixieland. If the lights were dazzling and obscured vision then it was all the more necessary j for the driver to keep a good lookout. From the evidence the jury was entitled, if it thought fit, to come to the conclusion that the car was driven at a j high speed. The onus, however, was on the Crown to prove the charge. There could be no doubt that it was accused's car that did the damage. It j was curious that accused did not hear j the constable call out when other people jin the stillness of the evening could i hear the crash. His Honor could r.ot see anything further to comment upon. i The jury had to be satisfied that the j Crown had proved neglect: first, neglect to drive at a proper speed, and secondly, neglect to keep a proper lookout. The jury retired at 12.45 p.m.