GIVEN BENEFIT OF DOUBT

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 191, 15 May 1928, Page 10

GIVEN BENEFIT OF DOUBT

CASE AGAINST MEDICAL •' . HEALTH OFFICER DRUNKENNESS CHARGE DISMISSED Dominion Special Service. ’ Dunedin, May 14. In the Magistrate’s Court to-day Mr. H. W. Bundle, S.M., dismissed the charge against Dr. James Henry /. Crawshaw, chief medical officer of health for Otago district, of being intoxicated while in charge of a car in Victoria Street on May 1. At the previous hearing His Worship reserved his decision to allow him to inspect the spot where -defendant was arrested. ■ ■ . '■■■ . - “i have taken the opportunity since the hearing of the-charge,” said the Magistrate after If lengthy traversal of the evidence, “of' viewing the spot where the car .was found when defendant was taken in charge. Victoria ' Street is a very steep street running from London Street to Lower York Place in a straight line. Brom Loaded Street to Cargill Street it is metalled. , The grade from Cargill Street to Lower York Place is extremely steep and there is no roadway for vehicular traffic. , After -viewing the street, it is amazing'to me that any motorist who, in ignorance or for any other reason, attempted to descend it should live to relate; his experience. “I - have carefully considered and weighed the - evidence ( ■ given. The facts on which .the witnesses for the prosecution base their- opinion by themselves are very convincing and sufficient to make any reasonable man assume that defendant was Intoxicated, but after . seeing Victoria Street ' and visualising the;-course taken by the ear, there is-a doubt raised in my mind by the contention by medical witnesses for the'defence—namely that the shock of the experience he had passed through, combined with his physical state, had temporarily unbalanced defendant. This, combined • with the effect of even two whiskies, might be sufficient to make defendant appear clearly intoxicated.' This:;:doubt is not lessened when. I consider that substantially the charge is that defendant was intoxicated before he commenced to cohie down. Victoria Street. I have accepted the evidence of Dr. Gowland, Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Gowland that in their opinion defendant was quite sober when he left Mr. Ritchie’s. If he became intoxicated before entering Victoria Street these gentlemen were wrong in their opinion or intoxication took effect in the

short distance between I-leriot Row

and Victoria Street. If the defendant had been intoxicated before entering Victoria Street it seems strange that he was able to steer the course he did before the car came in contact with a. tree* “Having this doubt, I do not feel justified in entering a conviction. Defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the charge is dismissed.”.