MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 260, 3 November 1925, Page 10

MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE.

OrMEHUNGA FATALITY. DUTY OF THE JURY. SETTING STANDARD OF CARE. ''Gentlemen, the matter is important, tlie question is important, the case is important,"' said his Honor Mr. Justice Heed to-day in the Supreme Court, in his summing up at the trial of James Rridge (Mr. Richmond), on a charge of manslaughter, and an alternative charge of negligent driving. On August 13 a truck driven by accused ran into a tram shelter at tlie junction of Queen and Trafalgar Streets, Onclmnga, and struck Mrs. Mary MeKenzie, who was jammed against one of the shelter uprights, and died an hour after being admitted to the hospital. The jury had to decide whether the accident and the woman's death had been caused by negligence on the part of accused, by a want of cure in managing the car, or whether the circumstanced of the case were such that j it was an inevitable accident, and that j he couldn't have avoided it by exercising reasonable care. The case, said Mr. Justice Reed, Mas important, because motor car accidents were all too common nowadays. One hardly ever picked up a newspaper that did not contain an account of an accident. Motorists had ii duty to the public to drive with care and caution. It was by tlie verdict of juries that tlie standard of care was fixed. To take an extreme case, illustrating this point, his Honor said a motorist might career down Queen Street at 40 miles an hour, knocking people over right and left, and if the jury returned a verdict of not guilty the standard of care would be affected. The verdict was consequently of considerable importance. The jury had to'consider two storie6, continued his Honor. But they could start with the fact that in broad daylight two women and a child were run down in a shelter shed. That was an undisputed fact. Then there was the story of the accused. If the jury 'believed that the accident had been caused by pedestrians foolishly running across the road, they would acquit accused; but if they believed tlie story of the surviving Mrs. McKenzie, sister-in-law of deceased, and of the other eye-wit-nesses, his Honor thought they would be bound to lind accused guilty. In the latter case it was for the jury to determine whether the circumstances were such as to warrant a verdict of guilty on the score of manslaughter, or whether they would find him guilty on the charge of negligent driving, which had no relation to manslaughter. Evidence of Accused. In evidence, accused said his truck carried no speedometer, but in approaching the corner he was travelling at a good speed, probably 25 miles an hour, or a little more. Till he was well up to the corner, and about sixteen paces from them, he did not see the women and child. He was slowing down, and it was his intention to pull out to the right. The women and child were looking at him, and he thought they were going to stand still till he passed. He accelerrated a little, and at that moment the women made a quick rush for the shelter. He jammed on his brakes when only a few feet away from them, and the car skidded on the muddy road. If the street had been in ordinary condition the truck would have stopped full Off clear of the post.' The. forward skid made the last few feet of flight, In which deceased was struck. The front wheel struck the first post and collapsed before reaching the second post. Mrs. MeKenzie was jammed against the second post. Accused estimated that had his car been travelling at a speed of five miles an.hour.it would have gone right through the shelter shed. To Mr. V. R. Meredith (Crown Prosecutor) : The impression accused got was that the women and' child w r ere going to cross in front of the car, as people did on a busy crossing, anticipating that the car would pull up, as it would have done if the surface of the road had been good. To the Bench: If the road had been clear I would not have gone yearly so close to the shelter. To Mr. Richmond: The people were not on the middle of the road. They were near the inside edge of the concrete, near the tram line. To the Bench: I was practically straightened out when I accelerated. I was about half-way towards them when they began to move. They left mc just enough clearance to get by after I had accelerated —that was when I was within about ten paces of. them. They then moved in towards the shelter. It appeared to me'that they thought I would be able to pull up. To Mr. Richmond: There would not be any occasion for mc to indulge in a race with the other car on the road. "Thought Car Was in Check." Frederick 9. Nouth, motor engineer, described the' extent of the damage to the car. He thought the car would have gone right through the shelter had it been travelling fast. He thought the car was well in check. R. A. Cornish, builder, said the posts in the shelter were Gin totara posts. The timber was brittle and shortgrained. There was an old fracture on one post, and opposite it a new fracture. John McKinley, licensed surveyor, agreed that the totara post had an old fracture. He estimated that a speed of six miles an hour would have fractured the post with a direct blow. It would take very much leas to fracture it as it was. R. J. Laird, consulting engineer, principally engaged in the assessment of damage in accidents, stated it was his opinion that the car must have practically stopped when it struck the shelter, judging from the mark on the post, the lamp, and the mudguard. If the car had been doing any speed it would have torn up the footpath. Witness would say that the lack of skid marks pointed to a lack of speed. In his address, Mr. Richmond said the jury should not place much reliance on the speed estimates of witnesses. It was notorious that estimates were seldom correct. Attention should be given rather to the silent evidence provided by the fact that a swift-running car could , not hold a. true line on a wet and slippery road. Then, too, there was the brittle totara post, at the tramway shelter, which bore the mark of the impact. Mr. Richmond suggested that the mark was so slight as to show that the truck must have been practically at a standstill. The jury had to remember that, even if accused had not exercised the greatest care in the world he was not necessarily guilty of criminal negligence. Mr. Meredith objected to the latter statement. In his address, the Crown Prosecutor criticised the theory constructed by those who had not seen the accident, and suggested that the people who knew most about the accident were the eyewitnesses. It was a significant fact

that' the speed of the' truck had attracted and held the attention of normal people, accustomed to seeing motor vehicles every day. The evidence of those who saw the accident must be accepted. Accused had got so much speed up that he couldn't stop in time, nor clear tlie shelter, and the jury had to decide whether or not that was tantamount to negligence. Verdict of Not Guilty. The jury returned at 2.30 with a verdict of "not guilty" on the charge of manslaughter, and, on the alternative charge of negligent driving, the foreman stated that the jury had given accused the benefit of the doubt, and found him not guilty. The jury thought the tram shelter shed should be removed as it was a danger to the public.