DRUNK IN LORRY.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 136, 11 June 1927, Page 15

DRUNK IN LORRY.

CARRIER BEFORE COURT.

FINE OF £10 IMPOSED.

HE'D AS MI CH AS HE COULD

HOLD."

A plea of not guilty was entered by George Lec, when charged at the Police Court yesterday afternoon wHII. being in a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor lorry in Fansliawe Street on April 27 last, and also with being in charge of an unlighted motor lorry. Harry Lee. a brother of the defendant, denied that he was drunk on the same

evening

Sub-Inspector Lewin appeared for the prosecution, while Mr. Alan Moody represented the accused, George Lee.

Samuel Dufty, of 23 Phillips Street, said that at about 5.45 on April 27 last he was driving a waggon along Fanshawe Street, when the defendant's motor lorry smashed into the rear of his wheel. He was carrying one light on the right-hand side. There was a fair number of lights in the street. "Did you look round?" queried the sub-inspector. "Oh! Those fellows did not cause me a thought. They can't hurt me in my lorry," replied witness. Describing the condition of the defendants, witness said one was real drunk, and the other had as much as he could hold. Mr. Moody: There doesn't seem much difference to me. Witness added that the driver was the one who "had as much as he could hold." Cross-examined, witness admitted he had no tail light on his waggon. Henry Ashley, aged 15, said the defendant's lorry was travelling without lights at the time the accident occurred. Police evidence was to the effect that when interviewed over an hour after the accident, George Lee said he did not see the waggon because it had no lights. The flood lights in the street had also affected his vision. Questioned concerning his sobriety, the defendant admitted to Constable Moore that he had had four half-handles during the afternoon. It was apparent that he had had liquor, and knowing his habits, witness thought the quantity of liquor he said he had consumed would not affect him. Mr. Moody: You mean his carrying capacity would not be over-taxed with four half-handles?— Yes! Witness said the other defendant was also decidedly under the influence of liquor. He denied having been with his brother, and knew nothing about the accident. In evidence George Lee, a carrier by occupation, denied that he was under the influence of liquor. He had had four half-handles prior to the accident, and before the police called he had had a little brandy at home. When his engine stopped his lights went out.

Walter James Woodroof said that when he saw the defendant, George Lee, at 5.40 o'clock he was sober, and quite capable of managing: his lorry.

Mr. W. K. McKean, S.M., said he believed that George Lee was under the influence of liquor when the collision occurred. He really deserved to have his license cancelled, but in view of the fact that carrying was his livelihood he would be fined £10 and have his license endorsed for being intoxicated in charge of a car, while on the second count the fine would be 10/. Harry Lee was ordered to pay £19/ costs for drunkenness.