NEGLIGENT DRIVING ALLEGED

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 190, 10 May 1938, Page 13

NEGLIGENT DRIVING ALLEGED

Motorist On Trial OUTCOME OF ACCIDENT NEAR FEATHERSTON Evidence for the prosecution occupied practically all tiny in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, when William Robert Thomson, lorry driver, aged 48, stood his trial on a charge of negligent driving causing death. Mix Justice Reed presided.

Tlie Crown Prosecutor, Mr. W. 11. Cuiininglitiin, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. 11. Lawson (Featherston) with him Mr. .1. I’.. Aimers, appeared for accused.

“It; is an unfortunate fact that in many of these road accident cases the element of drink is seldom absent, and when von have heard the evidence I think you will be satisfied that quite possibly it had a considerable effect in this particular instance,” said Mr. Cunningham. outlining the case to the jury. 'There is probably nothing more potent for danger if the driver of a motorvehicle takes alcoholic liquor prior to bis driving tbe vehicle ou a public road. A state of intoxication', of course, has to be reached before a driver can be charged. There are intermediate stages. One knows that the taking of even a small quantity of liquor is liable to upset a man’s reactions and to promote perhaps just that little amount of recklessness which results in his driving in a way which he would never do if be had not taken alcohol at all.” Mr. Cunningham said that the facts in the present case were that at about 4.20 p.m. on February 12, the police were called to tbe southern approach to the bridge over the Tauherenikau river, a mile or two south of Featherston. There they found a motor truck down a bank. A passenger, Thomas Cudlip, was lying on the ground and had apparently been liftcrl out from underneath the truck, lie had received fatal injuries. Accused admitted that he was driving when the vehicle careered down the bank. A constable would give evidence that his breath smelt of liquor, that ho was somewhat bleary-eyed and 'unsteady on his feet, and that generally his condition was consonant with his having consumed ? quantity or liquor. A doctor, who arrived at the scene just before the police, would say that although accused had had drink, he was not unfit to have charge of a motor vehicle. Statement to Police. Mr. Cunningham said that the road was a main highway and had recently been overhauled. The approach to the bridge had 18ft. 6in. of bitumen and an overall width of 23ft. Gin. There was a bit of a ramp up to tlie bridge, but the rise was not serious. Accused’s explanation of the accident was that as he was nearing the approach to the bridge a car travelling fairly'fast came over on its wrong side and caused him to swerve into the guard rail and finally down the bank. A third man who was in the front of the cab with Thomson, and Cudlip would say that he did not see any motor vehicle come off the bridge. A motorist who must have arrived at the Tauherenikau Hotel at or about the time the lorry went over the bank would say that no car passed him coming from Greytown. He was only a minute or two in the hall of tho hotel when he received a message that there had been an accident. He was sure no car passed the hotel while he was there. Another motorist would say that he drove from Featherston, and as far as he could recollect no car passed him between Featherston and the bridge, and that when lie arrived at the bridge the lorry was down the bank. Mr. Cunningham said that accused worked for a cordial factory and, according to his statement to the police, had started work at about 5 a.m. on February 12. At lunch time he was asked to deliver some ice to the Royal Hotel at Featherston. There was no doubt whatever that during the interval between lunch time and some time shortly after 4 o’clock when lie set out in the direction of Tauherenikau, accused spent a considerable portion of his time in the Royal Hotel. Tie had told the police that he had spent some time delivering cordial co two houses. The householders concerned would give evidence that they had not ordered any cordial and that so far as they knew none had been left. In his statement to the police accused said he had had four shandies at the Royal Hotel. A doctor who examined him would say he admitted that he had had five beers. However, that was not very material because he was not charged with being intoxicated in charge, but it did show beyond all doubt that he had taken some liquor. “The issue you will have to decide,” said Air. Cunningham, “is whether accused’s explanation about having met a mo-tor-car coining off the bridge on the wrong side of the road can be accepted as true, in view of the fact that two independent witnesses saw no sign of a motor-car. If we eliminate the car as an element in accused’s driving, you have the fact that in broad daylight and on a summer’s afternoon he drove the motor-truck so carelessly that he crashed into the bridge approach, knocked down half a dozen posts and finished down the bank. You have to say whether he exercised that reasonable standard of care that the law required of him.” Evidence was called, in support of the Crown’s contentions. Case for Defence.

Opening the case for the defenece, Mr. Lawson said that obviously when, as the Crown Prosecutor had quite fairly point'ed out. a motor-car in broad daylight collided with a stationary post on the road, an explanation was required. Accused’s explanation was that when he was approaching the bridge a motor-car came off on its wrong side and at a fast pace. He edged off more to his left until by the time the ear had passed him he did not have time to get back on the road. His truck struck a post and finally capsized. Accused was on his firm’s business and was on his way to collect a number of empty cordial bottles from the Tauherenikau racecourse. Mr. Lawson said that considerable efforts had been made by accused to trace the driver of the motor-ear. An advertisement was put in “'The Dominion” and in' other papers circulating in the district. One man who evidently thought it was his duty communicated with the advertisers and gave some evidence, the value of which it would bo for the jury to decide. The court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. today.