Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

JURY FAILS TO REACH DECISION

Negligent Driving Charge IMPORTANT QUESTION INVOLVED By Telegraph—Press Association. Christchurch, July 29. The trial of Frank Rowland Coe on a charge of negligent driving so as to cause death, was described by Air. Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court to-day as a “classic” one as the jury’s decision would set a standard of reasonable care for motorists. His Honour said that the Crown’s case was that the accused was travelling at a reasonable speed and was not affected by liquor, but the question was whether the accused was reasonably careful in continuing when blinded by tiie lights of another vehicle. During that time lie fatally injured a cyclist. The accident no doubt happened through someone taking risks. The question was whether the accused took the risk. A man was forbidden to take any risk which endangered anyone else. A person who drove when he could not see was guilty of negligence. The accused was on the horns of a dilemma. Either he did not keep a proper look-out or else he was trying to do so but could not by being blinded by oncoming lights. The accused’s action in pulling over to the left and slowing down for a considerable distance before the bicycle was struck indicated that he had been embarrassed by the lights for some time. Pulling to the left under such circumstances did not seem to be wise as anything might be struck. It was unfortunate that the cyclist had pulleij over to the gravel in the hope that there at least he would be safe. It would be a great misfortune if the jury, thinking this man did not use reasonable care, failed to say so. The jury retired at 12.10 p.m. and at 4.10 returned without a verdict. “That is quite definite,” the foreman of the jury said when he informed the court that no decision had been reached. “I appreciate the effort you have made to come to a decision on an important matter,” his Honour said. A new trial was then ordered, but no definite date was fixed. Bail was allowed as before.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19370730.2.125

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 260, 30 July 1937, Page 12

Word Count
355

JURY FAILS TO REACH DECISION Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 260, 30 July 1937, Page 12

JURY FAILS TO REACH DECISION Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 260, 30 July 1937, Page 12

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert