DRIVER ACQUITTED

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 199, 20 May 1941, Page 10

DRIVER ACQUITTED

Fatality At Lower Hutt

NEGLIGENCE NOT PROVED

After a retirement of 27 minutes yesterday afternoon a jury in 11l, ‘ Supreme Court, Wellington, acquitted Samuel Joseph Lane, building contractor, aged 29, of negligently driving a motor-ear and causing the death of Alban John Barnes. Lane was discharged. Mr. C. H. Weston, K.C., who with Mr. W. R. Birks conducted the prosecution, said that at 6.30 p.m. on January 25 a motor-car accused was driving collided with a motor-cycle Barnes was riding at the intersection of Montague Street and Fitzherbert Street, Lower Hutt. Accused was driving westward along Montague Street and Barnes was riding southward along Fitzherbert Street. The rider of the motor-cycle was killed. Except accused, there was only one witness, a man who Was walking on the southern side of Montague Street in the same direction as the car was travelling. That witness estimated accused’s speed at 15 miles an hour, and said the ear slowed down and its horn was sounded twice as it approached the intersection. The northern part of I’itzherbert Street was half a chain wide and its southern part one. chain wide, while the whole of Montague Street was a chain wide. There was a hedge 7£t. high on the corner between the cycle and the car. Measurements of skid marks made after the accident •neiit to show that accused did not put on his brakes till he was hitting, or bad hit, the motor-cycle. In a statement to the police accused said his speed before the accident was 25 miles an hour, but later he amended his estimate to 20. He said he looked to the right and to the left, but when he looked back there was a motor-cycle in front of the car. Accused expressed the opinion in .the statement that Ute accident must have been due to the motor-cyclist’s excessive speed. The Crown case was that the speed of the car was too fast for the locality, considering that it was the car that would have to give way.

Mr. IV. P. Rollings, who appeared for accused, said accused’s speed was nothing approaching 20 miles an hour at the intersection, the references to speed in accused’s statement being to the pace of’ the car earlier. There was no evidence of accused having driven too fast or having been on the wrong side. It might be said that he crossed in breach of the right-hand rule, but that in itself was not evidence of negligence.

The pedestrian who saw the accident and several police witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution, and accused was called by Mr. Rollings. When the jury announced their verdict his Honour said he was satisfied it was correct.