A TAIERI CASE

Evening Star, Issue 21079, 16 April 1932, Page 24

A TAIERI CASE

DRUNK IN CHARGE OF A VAN A good deal of the time of the Mosaic I Court was taken up yesterday over a case in which a Berwick resident, William Kerr Robinson, appeared before Mr J, R. Bartholomew, S.M., to answer a charge of driving his grocery van while in a state of intoxication. Constable Southgate represented the police. Martin Heffernan, a farmer, of Berwick-, said ho was driving homo from town behind the defendant, whom ho was afraid to pass because his vehicle was wandering all over the road. About a quarter of a mile from Berwick the defendant suddenly stopped in the middle of the road, and witness pulled up behind him. He then reversed his van into witness’s car. Both of them got out of their vehicles, and witness noticed that defendant could hardly keep his balance. He had a stupid look on his face, and smelt strongly of liquor. In witness’s opinion ho was properly drunk. Alary Heffernan, wife of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence, and Joseph Hall testified to having taken measurements of the tracks of the two cars immediately after the accident. Constable Southgate also gave evidence. He said he arrived on the scene of the accident about two hours and a-half after it occurred. He smelt drink on Robinson, who was pallid about the face, had a glassy stare, and was thick in his speech, although lie walked fairly well. It was witness’s opinion that defendant was then sobering tip. Defendant told him he had had no drink in town, but had had one shandy at Henley, and also alleged that Heffernan had run into him from behind. Witness said he had frequently warned the defendant about drinking when he was driving. Counsel for defendant said the charge was a serious one for his client, who depended on his driver’s license to carry on his business as a country storekeeper. It was strange, he thought, that although everyone considered him to he drunk at the time no one thought of taxing him with it at the time. That put him at a disadvantage, since, not knowing these proceedings would be brought, he had no opportunity of getting witnesses to testify to his condition. Counsel submitted that much of the evidence was distorted, and must be viewed with suspicion. Defendant then gave evidence, and denied that he was drunk, saying that collided with him from behind. Ho did not stop his van on the road, and did not reverse. Norman Reardon, storekeeper at Neill and Co.’s, testified to defendant’s sobriety at 4 p.m. on the day in ques-, tion: and William Arthur Godwin, barman at the Henley Hotel, said that the defendant had only one shandy when lie stopped at the hotel. He looked quite sober then. The Magistrate said he had no doubt whatever that the defendant was drunk at the time, and not in a fit condition to drive a van. The prosecution’s evidence about the collision was quite clear, but it was inconceivable that the accident could have occurred in the manner related by the defendant. The evidence for the defence did not carry the matter any further, and the barman must be regarded ns an interested party whose evidence was open to suspicion. The Magistrate said there could he no doubt that the man was intoxicated, and the evidence disclosed a sorry state of affairs which might have been much more serious, and could easily have resulted in loss of life. After considering the defendant’s financial position, which was stated to be weak, the magistrate imposed a, fine of £o, with court costs (21s) and witnesses’ expenses (£2 I7s). cancelled the defendant’s license, and prohibited him from driving until June 1.