TRAFFIC APPEAL HEARD

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29004, 19 September 1959, Page 15

TRAFFIC APPEAL HEARD

Report In “The Tinies” Quoted

Mr P. T. Mahon, counsel for the Crown, produced a copy of a brief report in “The Times” of an English legal decision which is as yet unreported in official law reports, when arguing a traffic appeal in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr Mahon told Mr Justice Henry that after seeing mention of the English decision in the “Criminal Law Review,” he had made inquiries overseas for a report of the decision, but without success. Finally, a report of the decision had been found in a copy of “The Times” of April 16 this year in the Canterbury Public Library. “We’ve had true copies of this newspaper report typed out. It’s only a'brief report, but it’s all we have available,” Mr Mahon said.

The Court was hearing an appeal by Arthur John Warrington against conviction on charges of failing to stop after an accident, failing to ascertain if any person was injured, and failing to render all practicable assistance after an accident, laid under section 47 of the Transport Act. Appearing for Warrington, Mr B. J. Drake argued that section 47 of the Transport Act created not three, but only two, offences. After his argument was opposed by Mr Mahon, his Honour reserved decision. English Decision Cited

The English decision in the case North v. Gerrish was given by the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division. The Court allowed an appeal by a prosecutor, Mr Leonard Stanley North, by way of a case stated, against a decision of Oxford justices dismissing an information against Percy George Gerrish charging him with failing to stop and give his name and address after an accident, contrary to section 22 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. The Lord Chief Justice said that the magistrates had found that the defendant, having come into collision with another vehicle, did not stop but went on for over a mile. Ultimately, when stopped and asked for his name and address by an authorised person, he did give the required particulars. The magistrates had held that no offence had been committed because they considered that a failure to comply with both requirements—stopping, and giving the name and address if required—was necessary to prove an offence under section 22 of the act. The judgment was that “it was perfectly clear that the section of the act created only one offence, and that if either element was. missing—if a person stoped but did not give his name and address, or did not stop but subsequently gave his name and address—the full requirements of the section had not been complied with.”

Decrees Nisi Granted Ngarita Rona Hart, a married woman, of Christchurch, was granted a decree nisi on the ground of desertion when she petitioned for divorce from Robert Brannan Hart, a tally clerk, of Maungatapu, near Tauranga, before Mr Justice Henry in the Supreme Court yesterda,. Mr W. G. P. Cunjngham apmetal worker, was also, granted a decree nisi when he petitioned for divorce from Ann Merlene Miles. ■■ ' W gf hw adultery with Ralph q. BafaHnetnn antnear-i