MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 185, 4 August 1923, Page 7

MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE.

A MOTORIST ACQUITTED. I 1 i WARNED TO BE MORE CAREFUL. The fact that accused had been traveling on the wrong side of the road did lot appear to be material in the case, laid his Honor, Mr. Justice Herdman, n summing up in the charge of mandaughter against John Leonard Lambert Smith (Mr. Jacobsen I at the conclusion ■>{ the hearing of the case at the Supreme Court to-day. Accused, while driving a motor along the Great North Road, ran down a small dov. Maurice Jonson. on May 9, death being almost instantaneous. His Honor referred to the extensive repairs that had been undertaken on the route accused followed. It was quite apparent there were difficulties of nil kinds about thp street the night of the fatality. Another circumstance was that at the time of the evening there was very little traffic in the 6treet. and therefore he could not bo expected to drive at the same speed as one might pxpect in Queen Street. A man driving at 7 p.m. along the Great North Road could not be expected to drive at five or six miles an hour. Fifteen miles was quite reasonable speed. Accused's evidence differed from that of the police in regard to the side of the road on which lie was driving, but that was not a vital question; in fact it might be safer to be on the incorrect side, as the children were further away. The main question to consider was whether accused kept a proper look-out, was he going at a reasonable and proper speed, and had he the car under control? Was he misled hy something the child did? Accused stated in his evidence that the child stopped in the centre of the road, but then ran on. If this was so his Honor did not think the jun- should come to the conclusion that accused was guilty of culpable negligence. Referring' to " the evidence his Honor pointed out that the skid marks showed that the accused had tried to avoid the children—and skid marks could not lie. These were matters that could be taken into consideration when deciding whether there was culpable neglect of duty. The evidence for the Crown was the same as that given in the Lower Court. EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. Mr. Jacobsen in opening the defence contended that manslaughter was a very serious charge. To constitute there must be not only an omission to perform a legal duty, but it must amount to culpable negligence, and this culpable negligence must be the direct and efficient cause of the accident. He contended that accused under the circumstances had done the only thing a reasonable man could have done. William Garke, a small boy, who witnessed the accident at a distance of about 20 yards, said that the accused was on the correct side of the road; that he saw the motor swerve to the right and that he saw a dark figure running in front of the car. It stopped for a second or two between the tramlines, and though the | motorist swerved again he hit it. The motorist pulled up about four feet away from the body. . THE JURY'S VERDICT. The jury, after a retirement of an hour and a-half, brought in a verdict of not guilty. They asked his Honor to impress on the accused the necessity jof being a little more careful in future. ! His Honor: I am sure that is imI pressed on his mind by these proceed- ! ingi.