MANSLAUGHTER ALLEGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 30, 5 February 1925, Page 8

MANSLAUGHTER ALLEGED.

j DEATH OF MOTORMAM. I nn I \ kr: ui-' i. .\n un .rial. j l'l.io charge of manslaughter pre- , ' fprred against ' .coign Denton, builder, iof Auckland, in the -upreme Court, was! ■ continued to-day before Mr. Justice! j Hoed. The case arose out of the death j !ol William I ampbell. tramway motorI man. who »a- knocked down by a motor! oar in T.'real South Koad at. its junction; [with Momona Road in the course of ' .recording Hi* time on the Biindy clock.; [ soon after neon on November 29. Denton, was represented ;•-.- Mr. Northcrofl. j . Mr. V. K. Meredith prosecuted. | Two trams, one inwaid and Ihe other; outward hound, stopped near the .-Jock. De,-cased stepped lioni the- inward-bound ' tram an 1 . rosso,l toward the .lock. A jmoiei car driven by accused from the city pas-cd the train, and clocca-od was knocked down. A fortnight later he died, in the hospital. t bark's .Matthews deposed lo having •seen Ihe accident. After I ampbell "as j knocked down tin? car travelled a'jout a chain, lie estiniatcil the speed at from '20 to ::0 miles a n hour. He did not j hear any warning born. I.'ndcr cross. examination, witness sab! deceased was .carried six or seven yards. ! David Morrison deposed to having 'stepped out the distance the car van ;on at 27 or 2s, yards. Thirty-lite miles iau hour was ii,,. estimate ol accused's 'speed mad" in evidence by Arthur Miu--1 ray. conductor of Campbell'* car. CcofI troy Manning, another tramway om- : ployre. said t'.ic speed was considerably more than live miles an hour. James I "Aright, iiiotonnan on the ounvard- | bound tram, said ihe ,»:■ passed al between 2o anil :lu miles an hour, j 111 a statement to Constable White, I accused said that in passing the cars hii bad slowed down to live miles an hour. ; and had blown his horn loudly several times. He said thai ( ump'oell crossed ;', he road lut'.i hi= head down, and struck ; one sub' ol the car. He appeared to I bate slriick tiie windscreen, which «■»« j broken. Case for the Defence. 1 "Ihe jury must not use a "thin" case |to make an example of a motorist simply Localise . „ r - t.„, multiplicity of fatal i mot or accidents, =aid Mr. Northcroft. jll was contrary lo ihe spirit of the Colin io visit ibe sins of others upon lone itnfortnnale motorist. There was 'one very sensible and common-sense test .which the law applied to all cases where negligence was aliened: "Was the conduct of the pet son in i|tiestion the conduct of an ordinary man placed in similar circumstances':" tin the basis of that ! lest tiie defence presented its case. ! Counsel thought be* would le* able to -how that Denton did what every motorist would have done in similar circumi stances. It was not open for a ! pedestrian to cross the road when and bow he liked, and then, in the event of lan accident, to blame tiie motor driver. itinc could not judge the speed of the .oar by the distance it travelled after the impact, tine had to take into account ;the mental capacity of tbe driver. He j might not apply the brakes on the instant ot impact. I What actually happened, said Mr. | Northcroft. was that deceased walked I into the side of the motor car. striking ibis bead on the windscreen stanchion. He staggered ancl fell on to the hard i concrete. In evidence accused stated that he drove his Fonl car down the bill, runl ning against tbe compression. A chain 'away from the stationary outward j bound tram he applied his brake and sounded his horn. The motorman from i the outward tram was standing at the - [clock twirling his key in his hand. Accused drove .slowly past the car. Accused mentioned to one of his passeuIgrrs thai everything looked clear for 'passing. After passing, at from five to |*-i\- miles an hour, accused eased tbe brake and tbe collision occurred. Deceased was alongside the car. One arm I was on the door near tbe driver and I the other, with the hand holding a kevor some other heavy article, must have I struck the windscreen, shattering if. . i The glass broke in a shower, in accused's face, and over bis bands. Had it not. meant rolinnuishimr control of the car, accused could have caught hold of ri- , Leased. (Mass had fallen to the floor. ijand it was difficult to operate the foot 'controls. Accused had lo apply the | handbrake. I To tbe Crown Prosecutor: Accused Ikupvv (hat the fool-break would have | brought the ear to a dead stop at five |'ir six miles an hour. On reaching the I stationary tram, accused could not. see ' the inwaril tram, having lost sight of it. II >n driving past, aci used was prepared | for any emergency. }~\e saw- Campbell jon tbe moment of the impact, and apj plied the foot-break at once. The car . jw-as practically af a standstill at the r . time of the impact. | Mr. Meredith: What was there, then. , to prevent you catching bold of ("amn- , i bell" and holding him s 0 that be should i not fall? It would have meant losing ,' control of the oar. .1 Two witnesses, passengers in accused's jcar. gave corroborative evidence. Other .witnesses deposed a= to (ho slow rate jat which the car was travelling. f i Proceeding.!