WOMAN HURT IN LEAVING CAR

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22357, 22 March 1938, Page 8

WOMAN HURT IN LEAVING CAR

DRIVER CHARGED WITH FAILURE TO HELP COURT OF APPEAL ASKED FOR OPINION lPa.ua association tnx.ioe.a4i.) WELLINGTON, March 21. A case stated for opinion in the Court of Appeal is being- argued before the Chief Justice (the Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers) and Mr Justice Blair, Mr Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Callan, and Mr Justice Northcroft. At the February sessions of the Supreme Court at Auckland, Kenneth Frank Bowden was arraigned on ■ an indictment containing three counts, in effect charging him (1) That on August 25, 1937. at Kawakawa, being the driver of a motor-car and an accident arising directly or indirectly from its use having occurred to Dulcie May Squire, he failed to stop; (2) that the accident having so occurred,; he failed to ascertain wnether he had injured Miss Squire,' in which event it Was his duty to render her all practicable assistance; and (3) that he failed to render all practicable assistance after such accident. About 10.45 o’clock that night, the accused was driving along Mam street, Kawakawa, while in a state of intoxication. The night was windy and it was' raining heavily. A friend was sitting with- the accused in the front seat of the car. Seeing Miss Squire walking along-the street, Bowden offered to drive her home, and Miss Squire entered the car and sat in the back seat behind the driver. Instead of turning into the street where Miss Squire lived, Bowden drove past and Miss Squire opened the back deor of the cat, and while it was travelling about 15 miles an hour she jumped .out on to the roadway, suffering a broken arm and other injuries. . At the . trial of the Case before Mr Justice Callan and a jury, it was contended, on behalf of the accused that the evidence tendered by the Crown, even if accepted, did not,disclose the commission by thfc accused of any of the offences charged. After argument, these, submissions were ruled against, and the case proceeded, his Honour having indicated that- if the accused should be found guilty he would state a case for the Court of Appeal. New Trial Ordered After a retirement of four hours, the jury failed to agree, and a new trial was ordered, to be heard at the

May sessions. The case was accordingly stated for the, opinion of the Court of Appeal. ... - - >,v Questions for considerations are; <1) Did the evidence tendered by the Crown disclose the commission of any of the offences charged in the indictment, or of any offence under Section 5 (1) of the. Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1936 (which .imposes upon the drivers of motor vehicles the duty to stop after an accident to ascertain wheher any person has been injured, and if so to render all practicable (2) Whether the direction to the jury was right in law. (3) Under Section 5 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, whether a motorist can be convicted of an offence of failing to render all practicable assistance to the person injured, unless he has ascertained or is aware he had injured the person. Mr -R. K, Trimmer, on behalf of Bowden, submitted that the facts did not create ah offence within the plain meaning of the words used in the statute. The facts did not constitute an “accident.” If they did, then it was not an accident which arose directly or indirectly from the use of a motor vehicle. After the hearing of further legal argument, the Court adjourned.