DRIVING MIX-UP

Evening Post, Issue 149, 20 December 1935, Page 9

DRIVING MIX-UP

CAR OWNER IN COURT

INTOXICATION CONVICTION

An accident which caused the di-iver of a motor-car and a passenger to change places, and thus made it difficult for the police to establish who was In charge of the car, was described to Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court today, when Henry Martin Murphy, a printer, aged 27, was charged with being found intoxicated in charge of a motor-car on December 14, and also with being found drunk in Waitoa Road on the same night.

The accused, for whom Mr. F. W. Ongley appeared, pleaded guilty to the charge of drunkenness, and not guilty to the other charge. He said that he did not remember anything that happened until the accident. Five witnesses said he was sitting betweehtwo memin the front seat, but the man who was sitting next to him described how their positions were changed when the car hit a verandah post.

"These cases call for the protection of the public by the cancellation of licences rather than a penalty," said the Magistrate in convicting the accused, cancelling his licence for one year; and fining him £5 and costs. He added 'that he was not, satisfied that the defendant forgot as much as he purported to forget. • .

On the charge of drunkenness Murphy was convicted1 and discharged: . Sub-Inspector C. E. Roach said that the accused had been arrested last Saturday night some time after 11 o'clock. He was then found in Waitoa Road, Hataitai, close by a motor-car that had been in collision with the verandah posts of a shop. It was not known at the time who w^s actually in charge of the car, but it was found later that Murphy was the owner. Further inquiries resulted in the discovery that he was the driver on that night, and had had the accident on account of his insobriety.

Constable J. E. Callaghan read a statement, made by the accused in which he said he had had a few glasses of beer at the house of a friend in Kilbirnie, and some more liquor at a second friend's "place.,.:' He did " not remember anything after'leaving the second friend's house, and had no recollection of being in the motor-car when it ■.struck . the pole: or of being arrested. He was certain that he was not driving, but was unable to say who was. ' ..",.-.'

Five witnesses who were in the vicinity of the accident gave evidence that Murphy,,who was wearing a blue and white blazer, was sitting in the front seat between two other men. He and the man in the driver's seat were both' hanging on to the steering wheel, One witness added* that in the» position in which he was in Murphy could *not have been driving the car.

Four of the witnesses for the prosecution also gave evidence that they had seen the man in the blazer get into the car andtry to start it.' The majority of the witnesses agreed that Murphy was intoxicated. One of the men who was in the car at the time said that before the accident he was sitting on. Murphy's lefthand side. When he saw that the car was not coining round the corner he leant over and slewed the steering wheel round. After the accident he was dazed : through striking the windscreen, and he found himself near the driver's seat with his legs over Murphy's, and the gear -lever under his calves. Murphy had slid into the centre of the seat and was leaning over the wheel. The witness sat in the i cat" until someone came.

:The witness added that Murphy was certainly.: not very-drunk. He had had some liquor, but he seemed to be in a state where he should have been able to drive a car.

In evidence Murphy said he could not remember ■ what had happened from the time be left the house in Seatoun Road until the accident.

The Magistrate said there .was no doubt that the accused must be convicted, apart from whether he was the driver of the car immediately prior to the accident, as technically he was in charge,of the car immediately he tried to start it later.