UNUSUAL CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 74, 29 March 1938, Page 9

UNUSUAL CASE.

DRIVER'S IDENTITY.

INFORMATION NOT GIVEN. WOMAN FINED £10. (By Telegraph.—Special to " Star.") PALMKRSTON NORTH, Monday. Failing to give the police information which might lead to the identification of the driver of a car involved in an accident where a person suffered injury was the unusual charge heard in the l'almerston North Magistrate's Court to-day. The defendant was Mrs. Ada Martha Collinson, who was fined £10. Detective-Sergeant Meiklejolin, who prosecuted, explained that the. Motor Vehicles Act fixed a penalty as high as £.">() for such an offence.

At the outset, Mr. T. F. Relling, counsel for Mrs. Collinson. said she had given the police ail the information she had.

Mr. .T. L. Stout. S.M.: That may not be sufficient. If, bv making reasonable inquiries, she could ascertain who the driver was, she must do so.

Detective E. H. Compton, in evidence, said he saw Mrs. Collinson and he told lier that it had been ascertained that the front bumper of her car had been damaged. He wanted to know how it happened. Her reply was: '"Do I have to tell you?" Witness said he judged that defendant had some reason for not wanting to tell him. To other questions Mrs. C'ollinson either had no reply or said she didn't know. She eoukl not recall where she had been on the night the accident happened. Broken pieces of a bumper found at the scene of the accident fitted missing portions on her car. Mrs. Collinson, as far as he could gather, had made no claim 011 an insurance company to recover the cost of repairs. Mr. Relling accused witness of using a detective's method of binding an admission. Detective Compton: Thanks very much. Counsel: I know something about these things.

Detective Compton: And a good source you get your information from, too.

Counsel: Why didn't you put in the statement you took from defendant what you are telling the Court now? Detective Compton: Because to all my questions she would either not reply or couldn't remember. When it came to putting things into writing Mrs. Collinson stopped where the statement stops. Witness added that defendant was the very opposite of helpful.

Air. Kelling said Mrs. Collinson had been directly accused in the first place of being the driver of the car.

Ihe Magistrate: Is she prepared now to tell us who the driver was?

Counsel: She doesn't know,

The Magistrate: Well, she will have to prove she has reasonable grounds for not knowing.

In evidence, dafendant said she told the. detective she knew nothing about the accident. She couldn't recall where she was that night. She had given him all the information she possibly could. It seemed that the detective was making the statement for her and wanted lier to admit everything.

The magistrate asked defendant what, she was hiding, the latter replying that she was hiding nothing.

The magistrate commented that anyone could say they knew nothing about their ear. but the question was whether it was reasonable for them to know nothing. On the facts before him. it was reasonable that defendant should have been able to jjive some information. There was no argument about it. If counsel wanted him to fix security for an appeal be would do so. The fine would be £10.

Counsel's only comment was that it was «. matter of the facts.