MOTOR CAR FATALITY.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 112, 13 May 1926, Page 6

MOTOR CAR FATALITY.

NEGLIGENT DRIVING CHARGE. \

YOUNG MAN ON TKIAL,

THE QUESTION"" OF SPEED.

A motor car accident, which resulted " in the deatli of Robert Thomas Dae_ • had its sequel in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Herdman this morning when Andrew Donald stood his trial on a ciiarge of negligently driving _ motor car on the night of April 1 ; 50 ai to cause the death of R. T. Dagg. Mr. V. R. Meredith prosecuted and Mr. A. 11. Johnstone appeared for the accused. Mr. Meredith said the charge was not that of manslaughter but of negligent driving. It was not suggested that, j accused was under the influence of liquor or that it w-as a flagrant case. It was that accused was either driving too fast or not keeping a proper lookout. The accident occurred at the mouth of (_ionl>em Road, Remuera Road. That portion of the district w_g the shopping area of Remuera. It wag the Thursday before Easter and consequently a late shopping night. The place was well lighted and the time was such that a person would expect pedestrians. The deceased had alighted from a tramcar and was walking: towards the Victoria Avenue Post Office. He was struck oy the car driven by the accused and died later from the injuries received. A witness ■ would say that he ' noticed a motor car approaching: at such a, rate of speed that it attracted his attention. He then heard a crash and this witness saw a man lying on the ground while a shower of small parcels flew through the air. The car went on about 53 yards and was then pulled up. In a' statement to the police the accused had said that the deceased stepped off thtramcar 'and was struck by the motor car. The accused said he was travelling between 20 and 25 miles an hour. Witnesses for the Crown were of the opinion that the accused was travelling about 30 miles an hour. For the defence, Mr. Johnstone said the outstanding facts were not greatly disputed, but whether true or not thera would be the sharpest possible conflict between his witnesses and those for the Crown as to the true inference to be drawn from the speed, distances, and Times. The whole affair must _ar» happened within the space of twa seconds. He pointed out that in all collision cases no one could see every aspect of what happens, and in the present case not one witness had a clear view of the occurrence. He would 6_o-r that the Hght9 on the night and at ths point were particularly confusing. A tramcar obscured the vision of anybody on the opposite footpath. It would bt shown that the deceased walked suddenly into the motor car and was knocked down. He would establish that tha speed in the circumstances was not excessive, and that the deceased was not seen until the car was on him. The case is proceeding.