NEGLIGENT MOTORIST

Evening Star, Issue 19352, 11 September 1926, Page 2

NEGLIGENT MOTORIST

QUESTION OF CAHSEUATIOK OF LICENSE POLICE ASKED TO BEPORT The case against . George Strong for negligently driving a motor car in Prince Albert road on May 28 was continued at the Police Court yesterday afternoon. Mr W. G. Hay appeared foj the defendant. After a good deal of evidence had been heard the magistrate entered a conviction, stating that he considered Strong had been extremely negligent, and he would have to seriously jwnsider whether he should cancel his license. The question of what should be done with the; license was held over until next Friday in order to give the police and Mr Hay an opportunity of placing further particulars before him. Strong was allowed to drive in the meantime. Mr Hay said that his client was going down a side street, and imagined that the two men who had been knocked down had seen him. The pedestrians had not been keeping as careful a look-out as they should have done. There was no by-law in St. Kilda regarding' driving _ past stationary vehicles. Motorists in consequence were bound by the provisions of the Police Offences Act and the Public Works Act, which laid it down that stationary vehicles had to be passed on the righthand side. The defendant visited a dentist’s just before the accident, iodine being used in his mouth, and this had boon confused with the smell of liquor.

The defendant, in giving ..his version of the, accident, said that he noticed two persons crossing the road at the back of the car. They hesitated a little, and he attempted to get in front of them, but the pedestrians again stepped out, and the car hit them. The accident arose out of a misunderstanding on the part of the two men. To Senior-sergeant Quartermain; He admitted being concerned in several other accidents, but in connection with one of the collisions the complainant’s solicitors had dropped the action, whilst he did not think he was to blame for the others. The Magistrate said he w r as satisfied that the tramcar was stationary at the time of the accident. He did not believe the defendant when he stated he intended to turn into Driver street. He was convinced that defendant did not have his car under proper control. and that ho had driven in a most negligent manner. bemor-sergeant Quartermain suggested that the defendant’s license should be cancelled. “ Even the man’s best friends have approached the subinspector,” added the Senior Sergeant, “ with the request that his license should be cancelled, as they are seriously afraid he might kill someone.’. Mr Hay raised the point that most motors ts at some time or other had passed a stationary tramcar. . The Magistrate said he would consider the application, as the man had driven in a most negligent manner. The question of driving past a stationary car was only one factor in the case. ‘‘l will adjourn this matter for a week,” added Mr Bundle, “ in order to give the police and Mar Hay an opportunity to place tho position before me.” 1 Mr Hay said that the men who had been knocked down admitted that they had hesitated in crossing the road. That, he contended, had given defendant a wrong impression of their intended movements. Counsel also considered that the fact that defendant had been in other accidents did not prove anything. The magistrate then imposed a fine of £5, with witnesses’ expenses (£3) and court costs (13s).