NSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 4, Issue 142, 15 August 1941, Page 5

NSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

CHARGE AGAINST MOTORIST

DISMISSED

SEQUEL TO OHOPE ACCIDENT?

That the evidence presented dirt

ot prove negligence but merely

fliat a collision had occurred was stated by M,r E, L. Walton, S.M., when the Transport . Department's Inspector proceeded against Isabella Todd Curric (Mr C. S. Suckling) at Tuesday's Court sitting. The* magistrate dismissed the informal tion without hearing the defence. Inspector Delves stated that oji Vlay 12 he had been informed that an accident had occurred at Ollope.. He had found the motor car involv* ed on the side of the road which was about 28 feet wide. The car ■was two feet from the side of the «oad with 16 feet clear on its right* The defendant liad stated that she saw a car approaching about 50 yards away, had pulled down the sun visor to shortly be confronted by a pedestrian. She applied the brakes; but not before she had knocked a man down

Edward Mcllroy, of Ohope, stated

that at 5.45 p.m. he had left his home to walk towards the Whakatane end of the Pohutukawa Avenue.. He saw a car 200 yards in front of him and another behind him. He was just approaching a pool of wat-i er walking on the edge of the road and was wondering why the car bc-

hind was not passing when he was: Struck and knocked down into the ivater. The car coming from fh© other direction was 50 or 301 yards away. There was, he said, plenty off room for passing him. At this stage the magistrate pointed out that the evidence proved that there was an accident but did not prove negligence that could be classed as driving withovit due care ami fie dismissed the information-