MOTORIST APPEALS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 134, 9 June 1933, Page 8

MOTORIST APPEALS.

DANGEROUS DRIVING CHARGE.

SUPREME COURT HEARING.

An apoeal by way of an application for rehearing against the ruling of Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., in convicting John Charles Carrol of dangerous driving was heard in the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, this afternoon. Carrol was convicted and fined £3 and had his license cancelled on a charge of dangerous driving at Wiri. The appellant to-day was represented by Mr. T. N. Holmden, and Mr. E. J. Prcndergast appeared for respondent Frederick Jonea v traffic inspector of the Manukau County Council. The appeal was. lodged on the "■rounds that the determination of the magistrate was erroneous in point or fact and law, and also that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. • Mr. Prendergast explained that the prosecution alleged that on December 15 defendant was driving his car in a riianner dangerous to the public. Ihe offence was committed some time after eio-ht o'clock in the evening. The traffic inspector saw tlie car at Win and followed it. He would say that defendant travelled up to 60 miles an hour and that he drove over an overhead bridge at such a speed that he swerved to the wrong side of the road. It was also alleged, that defendant switched off his tail° light and pulled down the back blind. . • "When I first saw him at Win he was doing 46 miles an hour," said Frederick Jones, traffic inspector of 1 the Manukau County Council. "I followed him from Wiri to Papakura, which is five miles. He went through Manurewa at 36 miles an hour, crossed a bridge at 45 miles ail hour and got a lead of four lengths. At one stage he did 52, then 53, and 011 a down grade he was travelling at 60 miles an hour." Witness said lie stopped Carrol in Papakura and asked him why he was travelling so fast. Defendant replied, "I'm in a hurry. I have some children in the car and I want to get them home to bed." Witness asked defendant for his driving license, but he failed to produce it. It was pointed out to defendant that his tail light was not functioning, to which he replied, "It was all right when I left Auckland." Witness had his speedometer tested three weeks later and found it accurate. (Proceeding.)