FATAL NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20224, 30 April 1931, Page 5

FATAL NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED.

JURY DISAGREES. death of girl cyclist. (si'SCIAL TO THf. PEI3SS.) TIMARC, April 2'J. The criminal sittings of the quarterly session of tho Supreme Court were continued to-day before liis Honour Mr Justice Adams. David Bell, fanner, of Carcw, was chained that, at Geraldine, on April 4th, 1931. he negligontly drove a motor-ear, thereby causing the death of Vera Goodeve." The accused pleaded not guilty. Lite Crown Solicitor (Mr W. I). Campbell) conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr F. IX Sargent, of ( hristehurch, appeared for the xccused. Opening the case lor the Crown, Mr Campbell said lie would call evidence to show that the girl had been riding her bicycle on her correct side of the road, whereas tho accused was travell'tiK north on his incorrect side of the road. A collision took place, the untortunate girl subsequently dying from injuries received. The Crown would contend that file collision was the result of gross I'egligenco, and it would bo stated in evidence tliat the accused had been drinking at the Wolseley Hotel, Winchester, and, further, that he had been refused more liquor bv the licensee of tho hotel because of his Condition. Dr. L. C. Mail, of Geraldine, who was called to the scene, described the girl's injuries. Bell was in an excited condition. Me was not drunk, but •» tho opinion of witness, was under the influence of liquor. To Mr Sargent: The accused's condition was consistent with that of a man receiving a shock such as would be caused by a collision. James Michael Stiekings, licensee of the Wolsoley Hotel, Winchester, said that the accused and a friend had been drinking in witness's hotel at 4 o'clock on tho afternoon of the tragedy. The accused had two drinks and then asked witness to. "shout." Witness refused, as he thought that tho accused had had quite enough liquor. Accused then informed witness that they would drive to Temuka and get liquor there. Witness did not see the accused that evening. The next witness was Constable !>■ Callanan, of Geraldine, who described the scene of tho collision on his arrival. In the motor-car be' found a capsule _ from the top of a bottle of beer. There was also a broken glass on the road. Witness referred next to wheel marks on the road, indicating that the accused's car had pursued an erratic course. The accused, when interviewed, smelt of liquor After the accused had gone witness found a three-gallon jar of beer in the hedge at the side of the road. There was also a bottle of lemonade. James Alexander Johnston, a shepherd, residing on the Main road, north of tho Orari Bridge said that when ho arrived on the scene of the accident the girl was lying on the grass at the side of the road. Wheel marks indicated that tho car had been driven off the bitumen on the right-hand side of the road. There was a skid mark 22 vards long. To Mr Sargent: The skids might have been dray marks. * James William Stanley said that he was riding his motor-eyelu along the Main road when lie passed a car which was steering an erratic course, ft went from one side of the road to the other. Witness passed the car, which then passed him, continuing on its incorrect side of the road. Witness then saw a girl on a bicycle coming towards the ear There was a collision, the girl being thrown heavily to the ground. When witness arrived on the scene, a man Jumped out of tho car and said: "Bv jove. Dave, yo" have killed a woman." To Mr Campbell: Witness was travelling nt 30 miles an hour wlien the accused's oar passed him. To Mr Sargent, witness said the girl's bicycle bore no li<rlil. Case for Defence. For the defence, Mr Sargent said that he proposed to call evidence w> show that the accused was sober on leaving the hotel at .Winchester, and, further, the accused himself would; give his version of the unfortunate accident, which had resulted in .the death otMiss Goodeve. John Christopher Penrose, sawnul'er of Mayfield. said that the accused was quite sober when he camo out of the Wolseley Hotel at Winchester. Witness spoke to the accused on that occasion. To Mr Campbell, if on a clear road at night he would' pass anotner ear at a speed between 40 and 50 miles an hour. , ... Mr Campbell ; What is a clear road / —lt is clear if there is no light ahefld. . ,„ Then you would mst barge aheadr —Not barge. , ~ What is an average speed for you t —Forty to fifty miles an hour. His Honour: Why 40 or 50 miles an hour ? Witness: It's a common rule among motorists to pass a slower car ahead, and you have to speed up to do it. Mr Campbell: Tf you caught up on a man doing only 40 tuiles an hour would you pass him? —Yes, if I had a clear road. So -when you see what you call a "clear road" you go ahead and pass anything on the road?— Yes. If I have a faster car. What speed will your car do?— miles an hour. His Honour remarked that it would be rather unfortunate for users of the public highway if all motorists held the same opinion as witness. Mr Campbell: Do you evor meet an unfortunate pedestrian who doesn't carry a light?— Yes. Or does lie carry a light knowing what you arc?— No. The pedestriau will soon have his wings if you pass a car at speeds up to GO miles an hour on your Wrong side. There could be half a dozen men lying run down for all you care.—l know all about that. Walter Edwin .Poster, labourer, of Arundel, said that he had seen the accused at the scene of the accident. He was then sober, though he appeared to have had drink. Christopher Smith, mill-hand, of Mayfield, who was in the car at the time of the accident, said that the accuse'd and witness had had two drinks at Winchester, They also bought a jar of beer at Winchester, but they had no drink between leaving the hotel and the time of tho accident; The speed of the car at the time of the accident would be between 25 and 30 miles an hour. Bell was quite sober, though suffering from shock. Mr Campbell: Did you hear Mr Stiekings refuse to supply Bell with niore liquor, and Bell's reply that he •would go to Temuka for it?— No. Did you go to Temuka?—No. Just part of the way. Why?—J don't know. Where was the girl?— She was either to the left where you would not have hit her or else she was in front where you would have struck her?—l did not take particular notice. She may have been more to the front. Can you explain to the jury why it was that, with the car lights showing 90ft, you did not see her until she was six feet away?—l watched the road, and I could not see her. Mr Campbell then produced witness's Lower Court statement, wherein he said the girl was one and a half yards on the shingle.

Witness: 1 must have been misunder8t Mr' Campbell: This statement was taken down by an experienced man and read over to you. Your evidence the is that the girl was one and a halt yards in the shingle on her wrong side of the roa d—That was where we picked her Ul Did you put the jar of beer over the fence after the accident? Yes. Why were you so anxious to get rid of the beer?—So that it %vould be out of the road. I thought we were going to take the girl to Geraldine. Is that the way to # treat othei people's beer!—lt was mine. Why did you lie to the Geraldine constable that you had not been to Winchester? Was it to cenceal your drinking bout? —No. Accused's Evidence. The accused was then placed in the box. He said that he was a farmer at Carcw It was correct that he had been convicted of being drunk, in charge ot. a car in 1928. On ,the day of the accident he had had two drinks at the Winchester hotel. Witness had handled the jar of beer. Describing the incidents prior to the accident, witness said that lie had passed Stanley after rounding the bend in the road. When crossing over to his correct side he noticed a girl about five or six yards away. He attempted to avoid a collision, but failed. There was no light on the bicycle. After the accident, witness immediately attended to the girl, at the same time asking Stanley, the motor-cyclist, to send for the police and a doctor. The girl on the bicycle was on the correct side of the road. It was impossible to avoid an accident. His Honour said that the jury would have no difficulty so far as the law was concerned. After reading the accused's evidence, his Honour said that everybody was entitled to the use of the highways, subject, >f course, to regulations, one of which provided that a person in charge of a motor-car had to take reasonable care, and this applied particularly to the rules of the road. In this case the accused was not Oil his correct side at the time of the accident. He had good lights, but tor some reason or other, he failed to see the girl approaching. The jury retired at 3.50 p.m. After a retirement of four hours, the jury returned with an announcement that it had been unable to roach in agreement. , Mr Campbell, for the Crown, moved for a new trial, and the Court granted the application. The retrial will ta ce place in the Supreme Court, Onristehurch, next week. . Accused was admitted to bail in i own recognisance of £2OO, and one surety of £2OO.