"NOT GUILTY."

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 250, 22 October 1938, Page 14

"NOT GUILTY."

MOTORIST ACQUITTED. i —__ NEGLIGENCE CHARGE FAILS. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, Friday. Arising put of a collision between a motor-car and,'a cyelwt on the West Coast Rdhd, the driver of the car, Robert Erie; Milliken, was fount! not guilty when he appeared before Mr. Justice Xorthcroft in the Supreme Court to-day, charged that he negligently drove a motor car, thereby causing bodily injury to Albert Edward Herbert 'Vince. Mr. A. W. Brown prosecuted, and Dr. A. L. Haslam appeared for accused. Vince, said Mr. BroWn, was approaching Riccarton along a stretch of straight road near Yaldhurst. The accused, Milliken, was driving towards Christchurch from Springfield and overtook the .cyclist. Coming the opposite way was a car, which, according to Milliken, had very bright lights. Milliken said subsequently that he was dazzled and did not see the cyclist until he was almost on him. The question was whether Milliken was negligent in going on instead of stopping when he was for all practical purposes blinded. There was no sinister aspect of the case. Milliken travelled about 100 yards after striking the cyclist, but gave the reasonable explanation that the injured man had been thrown on to the front of the car, and he feared that by suddenly braking he would jolt the man off.

_ Calling no evidence, Dr. Haslam, in his address, pointed out that there was a suggestion that Milliken had taken liquor, that he was driving too fast or

on his wrong side, or that h© r an a.wa.y. As a possible explanation of why Milliken did not see tho red reflector on Vince's machine. Dr. Haslam drew attention to the weakness of the headlights on the car. The facts were not in dispute, said his Honor. The only allegation of the Crown was that Milliken did not see the cyclist as he should have done. As Milliken said he wa« not dazzled until the last moment, the jury might consider why he did not see the cycle before he was dazfcled, or if he was dazzled for some time, was he entitled to continue? "What is to be the position ?" asked his Honor, "to cyclists, pedestrians or othere? Are they to be run over, injured, maimed and perhape killed because a motorist continues to travel ivlien he cannot see them, they being in their proper place on the road ? Here is a man on a cycle properly equipped with every warning device, yet he is run into and gravely injured and may have been killed by a motorist who says merely that he could not see him." It was the jury's duty, his Honor added, to establish a standard of care required by motoriete. The jury returned with a verdict .of not guilty.