ST. ALBANS SMASH.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17862, 7 September 1923, Page 7

ST. ALBANS SMASH.

DOHERTY FOUND GUILTY.

SENTENCE TO BE PASSED TO-DAY. The hearing of the charge against John Thomag Doherty of having unlawfully killed Samuel James Cooke, thereby committing the crime o£ manslaughter, was concluded in the Supremo Court yesterday, before his Honour Mr Justice Reed and a jury of twelve. Cooke was killed as a result of a motor smash at St. Albans on July 14th. Continuing his address to the jury, Mr O. T. J. Aipers, who appeared for Doherty, said that there was only the theory of the accident, and this was that the Ford, driven by H. Wright, drove into the Overland. Doherty had exposed himself to the same risks as the passengers in his car. Before convicting Doherty, the jury must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty of negligence. Counsel submitted that the Crown had failed to prove its case against the accused. Mr A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, said that Doherty alone was responsible for the position in which he found himself. If he was doing his clear duty he would not have .been on the road on July 14th, and the accident would not have happened. No evidence had been adduced to show that Wright, the" driver of the Ford, was anything but a careful driver. Doherty was driving at from twenty-five to thirty miles per hour, a speed which at such a crossing was excessive and unsafe. It was Doherty's spaed which was the proximate cause of the accident. There was not the slightest evidence to show that Wright was a "rash, intruding youth," or that he had shown any negligence. The balance of the evidence was in favour of the claim that Wright was doing only about fifteen miles an hour, not much more than half the speed at which Doherty was travelling. The facts supported Wright's claim that he was going at a moderate speed. Experts for the defence had reconstructed the accident on nothing more substantial than mere guesswork. They were honest, but mistaken, in forming such a theory, and then going to such lengths to support it. Doherty was in the position of a dog with a bad name; nothing, however, could be said of Wright except that he was a very young dog.

Summing up, his Honour said t-3 jury should not be frightened at the word "manslaughter." It had a wide application and covered a multitude of sins. Offences coming within it might be trivial. A bricklayer might carelessly drop a brick from a. building and kill a person. This was manslaughter, but a, comparatively mild form. A man might pick up an axe and kill another man. That was a serious form of manslaughter. If the jury came to the conclusion that there was joint negligence in the motor accident, the law was that it was no defence for one of the negligent parties to show that another party was'negligent. If they found that negligence was due solely to Doherty, or due to both him and Wright, they must convict him. If they found it was due solely to Wright, they must acquit .Doherty. The motor regulations put the responsibility on motorists, who must drive at a speed not dangerous to the. public, taking all the circumstances into consideration. The accident that resulted in the death of Cooke occurred in broad daylight; the only visiblo traffic was the two cars. Doherty saw the Ford approaching a chain away. He must have gone right on his wrong side at the time of the accident. Tho jury were entitled to infer that he was determined to get past the comer first, partly because of a temperament that would not stand opposition. The case was important to the public, because the standard of care for motorists was fixed by juries' verdicta in cases heard in tho Courts. If the jury considered Doherty, justified in proceeding straight along the road as he did, they would find him not guilty of negligence. If they thought that any reasonable driver ■ would have slowed down to such an extent as to be able to ascertain with some degree of certainty which way the Ford was going, they were entitled to find that Doherty did not drive with reasonable care, and they should then convict him. The question was not which car ran into the otlier; it was whether Doherty was negligent in driving across the front of the Ford. The jury retired at 12.45 p.m., and returned at 2.35 p.m. with a verdict of guilty owing to negligence, and they recommended the accused to his Honour's indulgence on account of the anguish he had since suffered through the death of his friend. Doherty will come up for sentence at 10.15 a.m. to-day.