TWO CHARGES AGAINST MOTORIST DISMISSED

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29339, 19 October 1960, Page 15

TWO CHARGES AGAINST MOTORIST DISMISSED

The hearing of a case against Henry James Brixton, aged 54, an accountant (Mr W. F. Brown) on charges of driving under the influence of liquor and dangerous driving, was continued in the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr A. P. Blair, S.M. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate dismissed both charges. The case was adjourned at a previous hearing on October 13 after evidence had been part heard. At that sitting Mr Brown suggested that Brixton had been overcome by carbon monoxide from petrol, engine, and exhaust fumes. Mr Brown also said that carbon monoxide produced almost identical symptoms to intoxication. A photographer, C. G. Waters, was called by Mr Brown. He produced nine photographs showing where the sealer in the boot of Brixton’s car had fallen out, leaving gaps, and showing exhaust fumes and smoke escaping from holes in the vehicle’s muffler when the engine was running. L. S. Pollard, the service manager of Palmer and Doak. a Rangiora motor firm, gave evidence that he had inspected the boot of Brixton’s car and found gaps in the sealing. He said that his firm had serviced Brixton’s car since new, and he also mentioned that some trouble had been experienced with the sealing in this type of car before. This typ of trouble could be occurring in other cars of this make, he said, and the rear portion of Brixton’s car was below average. Exhaust System Defects The next witness called for the defence by Mr Brown was D. T. Costello, who was for 10 years the senior vehicle inspector for the Transport Department at Christchurch. Costello said that he had inspected Brixton’s car and subjected it to tests. He had blocked the tailpipe of the car completely, he said, but the engine continued to run without any apparent loss of efficiency, showing that the exhaust gases were leaking in sufficient quantity ,to clear the motor effectively of waste gases. Further tests had shown that fumes were leaking badly from the rear end of the muffler, the

rear end of the manifold, and from the manifold heat control. There were also other minor leaks, Costello said. In reply to Mr Brown. Costello gave details of holes which he had discovered that would permit fumes to enter the car. A rubber stopper in the engine bulkhead was displaced, he said, and would allow fumes from the leak at the manifold heat control to enter the car. In reply to the police prosecutor (Sergeant V. F. Townshend) Costello said that the rubber stopper could possibly have been displaced in the accident, but the holes in the muffler could not have been altered by the accident. "Fumes Would Enter Car” J. Lowe, a works manager of South Island Motors, said that exhaust fumes would definitely enter the car. He corroborated the previous witnesses’ remarks concerning the condition of the vehicle’s exhaust system. In reply to Mr Brown, D. R. Campbell, a member of Campbell’s Ltd., a panelbeating firm, said that the boot of Brixton’s car was a very poor assembly job. None of the defects in the exhaust system could have been caused by the accident. To Sergeant Townshend, Campbell said that bad sealing was not unusual in New Zealandassembled motor vehicles. Miss A. M. Brixton, daughter of the defendant, said that her father's health had been bad as fars as nerves were concerned, for some time. Miss Brixton gave evidence that after trips to Akaroa in her father's car she felt ill and suffered from headaches and dizziness. A friend of Miss Brixton’s, Miss J. E. Anker, also gave evidence that she felt ill when travelling to Akaroa with the Brixtons. "At first the prosecution seemed to have a strong and normal case,” the Magistrate said. “It followed the familiar pattern. However the focus altered when the defendant’s case was opened, and it was submitted that exhaust fumes entering the car had affected the defendant. Such a plea must be examined carefully, and even with suspicion. "In my view solid evidence has been given in support of the defence. “I was most impressed by the

evidence given by the witnesses. Pollard. Costello and Lowe. It satisfied me that there was a definite possibility that fumes from the exhaust could have entered the car. I have no hesitation in dismissing the charge of driving under the influence of liquor. “I find the charge of dangerous driving more difficult. I am inclined to think that a driver would realise something was happening to him, and his duty would be to stop. However, medical evidence has been given that it is a symptom of carbon monoxide poisoning that a driver could not stop. Under these circumstances I must find that there is reasonable doubt and dismiss this charge also,” the Magistrate concluded.