MOTOR TRAGEDY

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 25, 29 July 1933, Page 12

MOTOR TRAGEDY

ACCUSED ACQUITTED

ISLAND BAY ACCIDENT

TWO RIDERS BY JURY

After having heard tho evidence and, at tjieir request, inspecting the scene of the accident, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in the Supreme Court last evening against Frederick Patrick Hooker, aged 23, on a charge of negli-' gently driving a motor-car thereby causing death. The charge arose out of the motor tragedy at Island Bay shortly after midnight on April 1, when a car failed to negotiate a hairpin bend in Milne Terrace and plunged- down into Derwent Street, four of the passengers, members of a cabaret party, being killed. The jury made two recommendations to the effect that, having viewed the scene of the accident, they were of the opinion that the corner should be better lighted, and that all regulations governing the roadworthiness of motor-vehicles should be strictly enforced. After the jury's verdict with the two riders had been given, Mr. Justice Reed, who presided at the trial, ordered Hooker's discharge. The case for the Crown was conducted by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. P. S. K. Macassey), assisted by Mr. C. Evans-Scott, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for Hooker. v WITNESSES TOR DEFENCE. Three witnesses with a knowledge of the car before the accident were called by Mr. O'Leary to give evidence as to its condition, particularly in regard to the condition of the brakes. Athol George Kennealey, motor mechanic and driver, said he had driven the car a fortnight before the accident, and in his opinion the brakes were inefficient.' Vivian Ernest John Carr, manager of tho used-ear department of Dominion Motors, said he brought the car to Wellington from Waipawa in May, 1932. It was approximately a 1917 model and the car was difficult to drive. It had poor brakes and the steering was not too good, the car having a tendency to wander. On the frip to Wellington he had to come down the Rimutakas in low gear. The car remained on the premises of Dominion Motors until towards the end of 1932, and nothing was done to the car by Dominion Motors. Eventually the car was sold. Witness said he knew the- locality of the accident fairly well. In tho condition in which he last saw the car it would be quite unsafe to take it over the road it came down on tho night of the accident. Another witness, Cyril Moar, a motorcar salesman, said he also knew the car. He described the tires as being tho most valuable thing about it. As far as he knew, tho foot-brake would not work when the ear was at Dominion Motors. ADDRESSES TO JURY. In his; address to tho jury, Mr. O'Leary submitted that the charge against Hooker had not been sustained. He contended that only a person with a knowledge of the car, or a super-driver with no knowledge of its condition, could have brought tho car down the hill successfully on the night of the accident. A super-driver or super-driving, however, was not required by the law. So far as concerned tho Crown's allegation of incompetence, counsel submitted that it had not been proved. Mr. O'Leary went'on to refer to the condition of tho car and to make an analysis of the evidence. -There was a greater responsibility on someone else than on Hooker, ho submitted. The brakes were in a -deplorable condition, and the car should not have been allowed to run. on tho streets. Counsel also referred to the dangerous nature of the bend where the accident happened, mentioning that, another motor-car had gone over the bank at the same point a short time afterwards. Mr. Evans-Scott, on behalf of tho Crown, said that up to the time of the accident Hooker had never had a driver's licence. Counsel submitted that Hooker either undertook to drive tho car without being competent to do so, or he drove the car negligently. As to the evidence brought by tho defence on the condition of the brakes, it was contended that whether or not the brake linings were in an ideal condition there was evidence, from tho skid marks, that on this particular occasion, at any rate, the brakes had acted. Summing up, his Honour said he thought the case was a unique one of its kind. The whole issue in a nutshell was whether tho jury considered the Crown had produced evidence convincing them beyond any reasonable doubt that Hooker was negligent, and, if so, whether that negligence was responsible for the deaths of the four people. JURY INSPECTS SCENE. At the conclusion of his Honour's summing-up at ■ 4.17 p.m., the foreman of the jury said the opinion was that they should view the place where the accident happened. Arrangements were thereupon nia"de for the jury to be taken out. in a motor-bus to Island Bay. They returned to the courtroom with their verdict at 6.5 p.m.