HUTT ROAD COLLISION

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 125, 30 May 1930, Page 11

HUTT ROAD COLLISION

SEQUEL IN COURT

MOTORIST CHARGED

A result of a collision on tho Hutt. road oil the evening of the 29th March was a case heard in the Magistrate's Court to-day before Mr. E. .Page, S.M., when Stanley. Everitt Cave pleaded not guilty to a charge of bein^ drunk in charge of a car, and guilty to one of negligently driving a car. Mr. C. R. Barrett appeared for the defendant, and Sub-Inspector C. W. i.opdell for the police. . Bryant diaries Carter, a carrier, said .hat on the night of the accident hi: was driving a motor-lorry along the Hutt. road in the direction of Welling;o!i. About If-way between Pcton; .iid JS'gahauranga he observed a car om.ng towards him. The car .seenuvl ,o be swerving-all over the road. When lit: first saw it, it was .about 100 yards :iway, and 'scenici ..to be travelling a; an oxc ssivo speed. Up did not have time to get.out of the way. Witn;i'i Inms'jlf was travelling at between 2J hid. 30.miles an hour. The defendant';: car struck tho ■ lorr; a glancing b'.ow nv. the ri^ht-hand side,, and broke thr body and under-carriage. After tho ■■smash tlu' defendant's car stopped about 1-0 yards further up the road. Witn ».5s was of the opinion that the defendant's car w;. ."avelling. at about fifty miles an hour. -When asked if the defendant smelt of liquor, ' witness said that he certainly smelt of liquor, but he would not say ho was drunk. He seemed to be steady GREAT DEAL OF TRAFFIC. Vincent Francis Conninghani, solicitor, in evidence, said that he arrived on the scene of tho accident shortly after it happenqd. Witness inspected the lorry, wihich was standing on the lefthand side of the road, off the bitumen. Ho also inspected the skid marks. He decided that the lorry-driver could not have been at fault. The defendant told witness that ho had borrowed the car from his employer. Witness was of tho opinion that the defendant would perhaps, have been all right if he had driven the car at less than twenty miles per hour. At the time there was :i great deal of traffic on the road. Two other witnesses gave similar evidence to that of the previous Witness. Patrol-Constable Morrison stated that defendant had .made a statement in which hy'^aid that he had had two beers at 1 p.m., and no other drinks during the day. ,i He also stated that just prior to the accident he looked down at his dashboard to see his oil gauge, and he thought that that was the reason why he swerved. . LOST HIS POSITION. The defendant gave .similar evidence to Constable Morrison, but stated that as a result of ithe accident he had los! his position. He thought that his speed was about thirty-five miles an hour. He saw no vehicle ahead of him before ho leaned down to look at his oil gauge, and saw no lights at all. Two passengers in defendants' car gave similar evidence. i Mr,. Page, in summing up. said that the evidence, although it showed that the defendant had had some liquor, did not show that he was. in a state of intoxication. The first charge was dismissed, and on the charge of negligent driving the defendant was fined £20 and costs. His driving licence was suspended for three months. The defendant was allowed 21 days in which to find the money, and the penalty in default was fixed at one month's imprisonment.