CHARGE DISMISSED

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 112, 14 May 1935, Page 14

CHARGE DISMISSED

CASE AGAINST MOTORIST

A charge of negligent driving; I thereby causing bodily injury, brought | against James Thomas McGinnity in consequence of a collision between a motor-car driven by McGinnity and a bicycle at the intersection of Tava-! naki and Hankey Streets about 9 p.m. i on February.2B failed in the Supreme Court yesterday when the jury, after a retirement of half an hour, returned j a verdict of not guilty. Mr. Justice Blair was on the Bench. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown, and Mr. H." F. O'Leary, and with him Mr. E. D. Blundell, for the accused. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, an outline of which was given in yesterday's "Post," Mr. O'Leary addressed the jury without calling evidence for the defence. The case, said Mr. O'Leary, was one in which a young motorist had through his own foolishness and lack of courage built up a case against himself. He felt confident in submitting that if McGinnity, when the doubt arose as to what had happened, had pulled up and investigated the occurrence the present charge would never have been brought against him. It was submitted, too, that witnesses would not have exaggerated quite so much the speed at which he was alleged to have been travelling. Counsel contended that the action of the accused in failing to stop would prejudice his position in the eyes of independent witnesses in that they would feel annoyed, and in consequence their views of the occurrence might be coloured by what, they had seen. His Honour had indicated earlier that they were not trying a case of failing to1 stop after an accident. There was a charge dealing with that to come before the Magistrate's Court. In that case McGinnity would probably have to accept the advice of counsel that he was guilty of that offence. Hit-and-run cases,- continued Mr. O'Leary, were more often than not due to the motorist being in doubt as to what had happened. That there was a doubt in this case was clear from the evidence of the occupants of the car; that after the impact none were certain as to what had I taken place. If McGinnity was certain he had knocked down the boy he would have pulled up and remained on the scene. Referring to the question of negligent driving Mr. O'Leary said that the case was clear on the Crown's own evidence. The Crown could not, it was submitted, ask the jury to reject ,the evidence of the occupants of the car, which showed that ihere was no negligence on the part of the driver.