CAR OVERTURNED

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 99, 23 October 1936, Page 4

CAR OVERTURNED

HIT-AND-RUN CHARGE

VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

One of the first charges brought under the "hit-and-run" section of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 193G, which provides for a fine of £ 500 or five years' imprisonment, was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday,. Defore Mr. Justice Johnston and a jury, the allegation being that Leslie James McPike, a mechanic, aged 41, collided with a smaller car than his in. Vivian Street and overturned it, and failed to stop and ascertain whether anyone had been injured. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. W. H. Cunningham, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. T. P. McCarthy appeared for the accused. , The accident occurred at the intersection of Vivian and Taranaki Streets at C.40 p.m. on Saturday, August 15, the driver of the overturned car being Alexander Parker Burns. Mr. Cunningham said the crime with which McPike was charged was first made a crime by statute on July 31. The particular section of the Act (section 5) was. really passed to make it a criminal offence for the, driver of a motor-vehicle, haying struck or injured through the driving of his car some other person, to get away as fast as he could from the scene of the accident and leave other people to establish his identity later. It was the duty of the driver responsible to be in the forefront of the scene and he was the person required by law to get out of his car and see that the other man was receiving attention, or to see if he had been hurt. The responsibility was on both drivers if two cars were involved, but the section^ did not require'the persons concerned to find out who was to blame. . It was the duty of the jury, said Mr. Cunningham, to examine the section of the Act and decide whether the accused had measured up to the required standard. .The accused was required to stop and' ascertain whether anyone had been hurt, and, if that had occurred, to give practical assistance. CAR OVERTURNED. •Mr. Cunningham said that August 15 was "a'wet day! Mr. Burns was going down Taranaki Street with the intention of reaching Courtenay Place. The accused, driving a large -. car, was travelling from the direction of Kent Terrace along Vivian Street towards Cuba Street. The small car driven by Mr, Burns had almost stopped at the intersection and had moved put to cross Vivian Street. When it reached the tramlines the accused's car struck it on the:right-hand side at the rear. The small car slithered round on the Intersection and overturned- on to the footpath by the Panama Hotel. There were four persons in Mr. Burns's car. They were helped out by spectators, who also righted the car. None of the occupants was seriously hurt, but one or two of the three women suffered a little from shock and bruising. • - , It was three or four minutes before the passengers were out of the car, and then Mr. Burns waited until 7 o'clock, but the driver, of the other car did not appear. There was some evidence that the other car had stopped," but the Crown had not been able to find a witness who had seen a man get out or appear on the scene of the accident. Mr. Burns was: given a car number by one of the spectators, arid when the accused was interviewed by the policelater it was found that the right front bumper erf' the car-had been damaged. He admitted that he was the driver involved in the accident, but said he,did not'know the other car was overturned. "I did hit a car, but I did not think I hit it hard enough to knock it over" was another remark he made. case for defence: ■ After several witnesses had .been1 called for the Crown, Mr. McCarthy, opening the case for the defence, said the 'charge was merely of failing to stop and ascertain whether anyone, had been injured, and if it could be established that the accused had stopped and made inquiries the Crown case must fail. '■ By calling a number of witnesses who knew McPike the defence would prove conclusively that the accused returned to the scene of the accident. The accused, it would' be shown, stopped his car along Vivian. Street on the tramlines, and returned to the accident, where, in response to many inquiries, the people from the. other car said they were not injured. It was then pointed out to him that his car was still on- the tramlines, so he moved it and returned to the accident a second time; several people he knew told him that no one was hurt and that he : had.better,go home. The accused, in the witness-box, denied telling the police .that he did not know the car was overturned. Several witnesses for the defence gave, evidence that the accused made inquiries following the accident. Summing up for the Crown Mr. Cunningham said it was not the duty of the Crown to press for a conviction where the evidence of witnesses showed that he had discharged the obligations placed upon him,, and in this case there was no reason to disbelieve those witnesses. ■ His Honour'directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, which they did without retiring.