ZIG-ZAG MOTORING.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 80, 4 April 1925, Page 7

ZIG-ZAG MOTORING.

CAR OUT OF CONTROL. DRIVER FINED £25.

A man of 47, whose name was ordered to be suppressed, appeared at the Police Court this morning, when he pleaded notguilty to a charge of being in of a motor car in Symonds Street on x riday, March 27 while intoxicated. Sergeant Rowell prosecuted, and Mr. Holmden appeared for accused. Constable Breed stated that he was on point duty in .Symonds Street at 4.45 p.m. on Friday, March 27, when he observed accused's car zig-zagging across the street. In approaching the points accused turned round and went back down Symonds Street. He was leaning over the side of the door, driving with the one hand. TVhen accused came back again witness jumped on the running board of the car and told accused to pull up, but he did not take any notice. Witness then put the gear change leA'er into neutral and pulled the car up. The front and rear mudguards were damaged, while the running board was also damaged and was trailing along the ground. Cross-examined by Mr. Holmden, the witness stated that there was a large amount of traffic about at the time. Accused was not driving his car at a fast rate of speed. Accused told witness that his car had struck a centre pole at the corner of Symonds Street and East Street. Witness was sure that accused was drunk. He could not tell witness which was the brake and which was the clutch. Witness did not ask accused which was the accelerator. The next witness, Constable McKenzie, Said that accused's car nearly collided with a safety zone. It was zigzagging across the street. Although accused was drunk he was able to walk round the car quite all right when he got out. The car was not being driven fast. Constable Breed asked accused which was the accelerator. A fruiterer who keeps a shop in Symonds Street stated that he first observed accused's car by the way it was zig-zagging in Symonds Street. Witness had driven cars for 10 years and he would say that the speed of accused's car was between 30 and 40 miles per honr. For the defence. Mr. Holmden submitted that a terrible mistake had been made. Accused was a married man with four children. He had only lost his wife in February. He had two whiskies about noon on the day in question and had no more during the afternoon. That afternoon between 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock accused had been paying business accounts in some of the big city warehouses and at 4.30 he was at Ross and Glendining's warehouse. Accused had to meet a friend in Symonds Street and he had driven up and down several times looking for the friend. Counsel directed the magistrate's attention to what he said was the contradictory nature of the police evidence. First, Constable McKenzie had stated that the time of the incident was 5.45 pjn., Avherea3 Constable Breed had stated that it was 4.45 p.m. Then the fruiterer had opined that the speed of accused's car was between 30 and 40 miles per hour, although both constables had stated that the speed was very slow. Evidence was then given by accused, also Dr. Cawkwell, who said that at 10 p.m., when he examined accused, he was sober and that there was no signs that he had been drinking, while the cashier of Ross and Glendining's said that accused was quite sober and rational when he called at 4.30 to pay an account. Mr. Holmden submitted that there was a doubt and that- the charge should be dismissed.

Mr. Poynton said that the case was one of the first taken under the new Act, which did not require that a motorist should be drunk. The Act provided that the motorist had to be in a state of intoxication. The penalty was a severe one, the maximum being a fine of £100, or three months' imprisonment. The police evidence was that accused had been driving his car in zig-zag fashion up the street. He went up and down several times and the fruiterer who said he was doing 30 or 40 miles per hour might have seen him, even although the policemen had not. Accused would be fined £25.