A MIDNIGHT CRASH.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 157, 5 July 1926, Page 5

A MIDNIGHT CRASH.

TAXI DRIVER'S MISTAKE. MIXED HIS DRINKS. -ENTENt ED TO >K\TX DAY-' IMPRISONMENT. A feu- w-ek- ago. when Mr. J. W . Poyntou. "-.M.. liae.i a motorist, lor \v\w4 intoXioatoJ -.\ |i:l.. in ciuir_c nt a mot .r .::r. tin; tna.si-tra :e r.-ni.-irk • 1 ti-.a". in : n.ur--. owing tj the ;ii.-r.-:i- 1:. limn -.-.' of drunken motorists i'efote Im. - "U.-t. '■he wi.uhl impose a s--u"--ii •-.- _t imp.i-o'.i----1 ni.'-nt iu-teaa ot inrHotin.' .1 rim-. Hi: nr>; v i. Tim since the v.aiiiini -wis :---n.-i w.i = Austin liilivrt i).:r■ .i:: .'>"•. a taxidriver, whotu Mr. I'oyntou . >n-._n:i to prison this morning 1■ >r -..--. e:i on}- --n .1 ■ -.iar_..- ot beiug in .i state ut ntux...uioil while in 1 harge of a utoto" .:' ».»-1 New North Road, l-tng.land. Mr. L. I. Le.iry appeared for a-.u-ed. who pleaded not guilt\. >.\:i. r >i*r_:e.nt Edwards prosevured. Iviin Andrew, motor den..-:-, sail tint a few minute.- berore midu:_ht on •' .11 1 _t) he was driving a motor -a:' and waturnim. into Nov. North Kra 1 n. observed the .-ar driven by accused about X«) yards away. When w.tne-s -.hiproceeding along tiie main r.-al .ie felt a bump and on pulling up. round that Durban's car ha i crashed into the rear of witness' vehicle. Durban's car wa. practioally at right angles. Accuse 1 was sitting in his car. Shortly afterwards, while witne-- was speaking to ai.vn-od. a tram oar approaolie 1 aui struck the side of Durban's car. Durban then drove ".lis oar over the footpath and on to a vacant section. Witness called to accused to stop, but he continued ..:i down the section until he struck a kerbstone on the section, which finally pulle 1 him up. When speak in? to accused witness said he could smell liquor on him. While he did not consider tli.it accused was drunk, witness thou.-ht that he was not in a tit state to drive his car. Due of the rear wheels on witness' car was broken off. while the mv Iguard was damaged and the back axle bent. Witness advised a friend to summon the police.

Mr. Leary: Would you say it was a pure accident?— Accused was on his wrong side of the road. Other than that I would say it was an accident. Witness then told Mr. Leary that accused seemed to be all right, and did not appear to be dazed. Similar evidence was given by a motor salesman who was a passenger in Andrew's car. Accused was uneasy on his feet, and did not speak like a man who was in his ordinary senses.

William Lang, a tramway motorman. stated that he was driving a tram car from Edendale about five minutes to 12 on .Tune _•>. when his car collided with accused's motor car. which was unlighted. and was across the tram rails. Little damage was done to either vehicle. Mr. Leary: Would you say he was drunk?— No. I would say that Durban was not actually drunk, although he appeared to have had a few drinks. He drove his car on to the section all right ?—Ye*. It was the quickest way to get it out i of the road of your tramcar —Yes. The next witness was Constable Annis. who said he went to the scene of the accident in response to a telephone message. Accused was leaning against his car, which was on the vacant section.! Durban was unsteady on his legs, and witness cou!4 tell at once that he was i under the influence of liquor. He was j in such a state that witness would have , arrested him for drunkenness without ; being in charge of the car. On the way to the lock-up in a motor car. accused! told witness that be had had four i whiskies, but on arrival a. the police station he said that he had taken two; beers and two gins. j Mr. Leary: Was his condition like a man who had merely mixed his drinks or was it like a man who had been on the booze all day? Mr. Foynton: (an the constable make, such a diagnosis? Constable Annis: Durban appeared to] be a clean-living man who had evidentlyoverstepped the mark. Sergeant Angland. who was in the watch house when accused was brought in by the last witness, said that Durban was in a drunken condition. Witness was quite satisfied that accused was really drunk. He made no request for ai doctor. |

Mr. Leary said that, after hearing the', evidence for the prosecution, he must admit that Durban had taken somej liquor. However, the evidence for the | prosecution went forward in a progres-, sive system of strength—the first witness was quite mild, while the last witness 1 was quite the opposite. Just prior to, the accident Durban went to a house to pick up a fare, and was invited in-j side, where a little celebration was in progress. Accused never expected to be j invited inside. However, he made a mistake—he mixed his drinks, a thing he had never done before. He had two beers and two gins, and the mixture must have been a most potent one, said counsel. Referring to the collision, Mr. Leary said that this was a pure accident. To have a tram collide with his car after the latter had struck another motor car was enough to confuse any m-an. Unfortunately accused was a taxi driver, but a man who had never been in trouble before. It was typical of a case where any decent man might be caught out by chance, submitted counsel. The case raised the question that a man, although having taken some liquor, could easily control a car. Accused's subsequent state in the hand.ot the police was not relevant and proved nothing. Fairly examining the whole evidence, Mr. Leary would say that the matter was a pure indiscretion, for Durban had only had four drinks and no more, and did not realise what the effect of mixing drinks would be. Senior Sergeant Edwards: I might state, your Worship, that Durban has never come under the notice of the police before. Mr. Leary: Let the offenco be its own punishment. Mr. Poynton: That is rather risky. Mr. Leary: Well, I submit that the case is not a serious one. The evidence is consistent with a mild case and i trust that, as accused earns his living by driving a car, his license will not be jeopardised. Mr. Poynton: Seven days' imprisonI ment. It is not a bad case, and I will not endorse his license.