MOTORIST ACQUITTED

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 119, 13 February 1935, Page 11

MOTORIST ACQUITTED

Pedestrian’s Death on Highway

“DANGEROUS TO CONVICT”

A verdict of not guilty was returned yesterday by the jury in the case of John Stewart, whose trial was completed in the Supreme Court, Wellington, before the Chief Justice (bn Michael Myers), on a charge of negligently driving a motor-ear on the terton-Carterton road on November 36 thereby causing the (tenth of Thomas Lacey.

In the course of his summing up, his Honour, ’while observing that accused’s conduct both before, and after tiie accident had been reprehensible, warned the jury to be very careful, in the light of the evidence of a number of motorists that deceased had been narrowly avoided by them when he had been running out into the road in their track.

The jury were absent for a little more than half an hour before returning with their verdict. His Honour then ordered prisoner’s discharge. Mr. I’. S. K. Macassey conducted the case for the Crown, and accused was .defended by Mr. S. V. Gooding. In evidence on bis own behalf accused frankly admitted to his Honour that he had gone to Carterton from Masterton to get drinks after hours, and that beside being guilty of a breach of the Motor Vehicles Act he went to Carterton to commit a breach of the licensing law. Several drivers on the same road the same night deposed that a man like Lacey behaved in an erratic manner, and three drivers said they had missed the man by the narrowest margin.

Defence’s Main Points.

In his address to the jury,; Mr. Gooding emphasised three main submissions: (1) That there was no evidence of negligence on the part of accused; (2) even if there were evidence of negligence it could not be proved in this ease that negligence was the cause of Lacey’s death: and (3) if there was any evidence of negligence it was the act of Lacey, and it was that negligence that caused his death. Mr. Macassey intimated that he would not address the jury. His Honour Sums Up. "The conduct of accused on the night in question was reprehensible in the extreme,” said his Honour, in addressing the jury. "He and some friends went by car from Masterton to Carterton to purchase liquor in breach of the law. There they picked up Flynn and went to a certain hotel, hut, be it said to the credit of that particular hotel-keeper they were refused entrance to the hotel and the supply of liquor. They then went to another hotel and, according to the evidence of accused and Flynn, they obtained drinks and had no fewer than six in a comparatively short period. They also admit taking away bottles of liquor. “I do not wish to say very much about the conduct of the hotelkeeper,” his Honour continued, “because that no doubt will be dealt with by the police in appropriate time. The police have not so far taken action, and no doubt properly so, because they desired to wait in fairness to all parties until the trial of the present ease had been disposed of. But it does seem to me that those who are responsible for the conduct of an hotel and who supply liquor to motorists, quite apart from the fact whether they are supplying after hours, are under a grave moral responsibility. No one can tell what the effect- of the supplying of liquor to these men was, but we do know that intoxicating liquor has a serious effect in varying degrees on many people, and it is not safe for people who have been indulging to any extent to drive their cats.” His Honour said there was one thing the jury must remember in fairness to accused —that he was not being charged with any offence relating to the taking of that liquor. He was not charged under section 28 of the Act with being in charge of a motor-vehicle while in a state of intoxication. Even if such were the charge against, him there would be a grave difficulty in the way of the prosecution, because there was no evidence that accused was in a state of intoxication. It did not follow that a person who had had some quantity of liquor was necessarily negligent. Hit-and-ruii Motorist. “Nevertheless,” his IlonOur continued, “I do think as the judge in this ease that having regard to the evidence we have heard I must make the comment I have done, at the same time safeguarding the accused. His conduct was most reprehensible in that after the accident he continued on his journey without making any inquiry, and did not subsequently notify the police that the accident had happened. He says he did not know. He may not have known definitely, but he felt a bump and it was his dntj/to stop. He thus committed two offences against the law. This man is the type known as a hit-and-run motorist, and has already been charged and dealt with for those offences.”

His Honour then made the suggestion that where a motorist does not stop after an accident the onus should be thrown upon him to explain that the accident, occurred without his knowledge. Turning to the evidence for the defence, his Honour cautioned the jury to be very careful as a number of disinterested motorists had given evidence that deceased- had been, a menace on the road that night. “It would be dangerous to convict this man, reprehensible as his conduct was,’’ said his Honour.