MOTORIST GUILTY

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 118, 12 February 1941, Page 9

MOTORIST GUILTY

Negligent Driving Charge FATALITY IN CITY A jury of 12 in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday found Leonard Stewart, perambulator tnanufacturer, Petone, guilty of negligent driving in Cambridge Terrace, on November S last and causing the death of Albert Edward Boves.

The jury found him not guilty pn a second count of failing to stop Xfter the accident, and, on account t>f the boisterous weather and the fact that accused was slightly under the influence of liquor on the night the accident occurred, the jury Made a strong recommendation to mercy.

Mr. Justice Jobustou remanded accused till 10.15 a.'m. today for sentence.

Mr. O. H. Weston, K.C., with him Mr. JV. It. Birks, conducted the case for the Drown, and Mr. W. E. Leicester appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty io both charges. Case for Defence.

When the hearing was resumed yesterday morning, the case for the defence was continued. Kenneth P. Brown, garage proprietor, said his firm had had the servicing and greasing of prisoner’s car for some time, lie examined the car after the accident, and found its condition consistent with its having collided with a lorry at a reasonable rate of speed. Cross-examined by Mr. Birks, witness said that he did not know that the hand-brake of accused’s car was out of order. Hand-brakes were seldom used by motorists. Accused, giving evidence, said that at the time of the accident the warrant of fitness for his car was in order. He was 49 years of age, and had been driving a car for 20 years. He had never had an accident of any kind. He was a member of the Hutt Valley Electric Power Board. On November 8 last, he had four “Horse’s Necks,” which consisted of brandy and ginger-ale. He left the Western Springs Hotel about 6 o’clock, and parked his car in Boulcott Street. He took two soldiers in uniform for a drive, taking them through Courtenay Place to Roxburgh Street, where he had a friend. He had no recollection of ever having been in Cambridge Terrace that night. It was a boisterous night and visibility was bad. His average driving for a good many years past was 30,000 miles a year. He had no recollection of hitting any object in Cambridge Terrace that night. Had he done so he would have certainly pulled up. He had a vivid recollection of hitting an unlighted truck in Clyde Quay. He only struck the truck a light blow, and afterward drove round to Kilbirnie, where he stopped because a knocking had developed in his car, which he left in order to ring up a garage. He rang for a taxi to take him home. Conditions were so boisterous that witness lost his hat. Statement to Constable.

He had never taken liquor till about two years ago. The reason, he said to the constable at Kilbirnie, “I suppose you are going to arrest me,” was because he knew that his breath smelt of liquor. It was never suggested at the police station that witness was suffering from the effects of alcohol.

Cross-examined by Mr. Weston, accused repeated that he had only had four light brandies in the Western Springs Hotel in one and a half hours. He was perfectly sober when he left the hotel. When driving round the waterfront he did not know that his parking lights were out. He knew his car was making a louder noise than Bsual. He thought the two soldiers must have got out of his car after be collided with the motor-truck. Constable Harvey never suggested at any time that witness was under the influence of liquor. The reason he told the constable that he did not own a car was that he was afraid he might be arrested for having taken liquor while in charge of a car. Arthur Henry Hollis said he had known accused for nurny years, and had been associated with him in military service in New Zealand. He had a reputation for good character and sobriety. Edgar Vernon Bevan, New Zealand manager for the' Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, Limited, said he had served with Stewart in the old Petone Navals. He was a sergeant in the company, and bore a very high character, being intensely zealous and loyal. He would be the last man in the world to shirk a duty or dodge an obligation. Counsel's Address to Jury.

Addressing the jury, Mr. Leicester said the law did not punish a man because he had killed a fellow man, but it punished him if he killed a man through negligence. He submitted that the evidence the Crown had presented fell short of what was required before the jury could convict a man with the excellent character which accused bore. A man of 67 had elected to cross on a diagonal path a one-way street on a boisterous, rainy night. Was it not likely that he would have protected his face from the storm? The question for the jury to decide was whether the death of Boyes was due to the fact that accused bad been negligent, or whether it was 'due to the negligence of Boyes in walking across a dark street on a windy and stormy night. Referring to the charge of failing io stop after an accident, counsel said there was no evidence that accused knew that lie had struck a man in Canibridge Terrace. Mr. Weston, addressing the jury, said the street where the accident occurred was 37ft. wide, and witnesses had said that accused at the time had been travelling at from 35 to 40 miles an hour. The car struck Boyes, and carried him some 40 feet to the right, and witnesses had said that accused never stopped after he bad run the man down. Could the accident have happened without the knowledge of accused? The Crown said that accused’s muddled condition on the night of the accident had been due to drink. Accused had made false statements io Constable Harvey, and considered that he was justified in saying that he did not own the car. Counsel contended that there was ample evidence to convict accused on both charges. His Honour Sums Up.

His Honour in the course of his summing up, said one of the witnesses had seen the car knock a man down and had taken the number of the car. Accused, on the other hand, swore that he had not driven his car in Cambridge Terrace that night. The story was a difficult one as told by accused, as if he were not fuddled by drink it was no compliment to him to allege that he should adopt the role of a hit-and-run motor-driver. Accused’s explanation as to bow he spent the two hours after he left the hotel was somewhat vague. The fact that neither accused

nor the two .soldiers whom he said were with him did not get out of the car when it collided with a lorry in Clyde Quay required some explanation. Then the fact that he drove from Clyde Quay to Kilbirnle without lights was difficult to follow. Accused, when accosted by the constable in Wellington Road, denied that he owned the ear, but later admitted that be did. The jury retired at “.36 p.m. and returned at 3.50 p.m. with a verdict on the major count, and a verdict of not guilty ou the hit-and-run charge.