MOTOR DRIVING CHARGES

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 34, 9 August 1927, Page 5

MOTOR DRIVING CHARGES

FINES IMPOSED

A charge of having driven a motorcar in Featherston street on Saturday night while in a state of intoxication was denied by W. M'lver, in the Magistrate's Court yestei-clay afternoon before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M. Defendant also denied having driven in a negligent manner, but admitted driving .without a license. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the accused. Evidence was given by a tram motorman that tho accused's car collided with his tram outside Lambton Station, and then ran into a stationary bus. Witness,eonsid^ ored that the aeeused, when he got out of the car, was not in a fit state to drive. Theresas, ample room for a car to pass between tho tram and the bus.

Dr. David Whyto said that he saw the accused at -the police station shortly after midnight on Saturday. His breath smelt of liquor, but he had not the ordinary signs of intoxication.

The tram conductor said he estimated the speed of the car as it approached the tram as thirty miles an hour.

To Mr. O'Leary: He did not think the accused ■would have been arrested for drunkenness if he had been walking along the street.

The driver of the bus said that, in his opinion, the accused "was not drunk, but ho was not capable of driving a car properly. It was a bad night for driving, with drizzling rain. Three constables and a taxi-driver gave evidence that the accused's breath smelt of liquor. They considered that he was slightly under the influence of drink.

Sergeant Hill said that, after talking with the accused a few minutes after the accident, he came to the conclusion that he was in a state of intoxication. In the car, witness found two whisky glasses, one broken. The accused had no driver's license.

Mr. O'Leary submitted that the charge of driving in a state of intoxication was not sustained by the evidence, but the Magistrate said he was not prepared to dismiss the charge. 1 Wilfred John. Crammond said that the accused, and a lady visited his house on Saturday evening, but no Uquor was consumed on the premises. He saw nothing to indicate that accused had had drink.

In the box, the accused said that he had had two whiskies before C p.m. on Saturday and no drink between that time and the occurrence of the mishap. Visibility was very bad at the time, and he did not see the tram until too late to ,avoid a collision, He was veryupset as a result.

To Sub-Inspector Harvey: He know nothing about the glasses found in the car.

Dr. W. J. M'Donald said that he examined the accused three-quarters of au hour after . the accident. Af that time, in witness's opinion, he was in a fit state to drive a car, and witness considered, that he would have been able to drive capably at the time of the accident.

In giving his decision, Mr. Salmon said that the evidence of the defence was so much in contradiction with that of the prosecution that it was obvious there was some perjury or deliberate misrepresentation. Despite the assertion, that the accused had had no liquor since 6 p.m., a number of reliable witnesses and the doctors had sworn that his breath snielt of drink. He therefore refused to accept the evidence for the defence, and ho was satisfied that at the time of the accident the accused was, to some extent, under the influence of liquor, and his judgment was impaired.

On the charge of driving while in a state' of intoxication, defendant was fined £25. For driving in a negligent manner, he was convicted and ordered to pay costs, and driving with out a license, he was fined £2.

In reply to an objection by Mr. O'lieary, the Magistrate said that his comment on the evidence for the defence did not apply in Mr. Crammond's case.

M'lvor was also prohibited from ol> taining a driver's license for a year.