MOTOR CYCLIST CHARGED

Evening Star, Issue 21233, 14 October 1932, Page 9

MOTOR CYCLIST CHARGED

INTOXICATION ALLEGED At the Police Court this morning Robert Julius Olsen pleaded not guilty to being intoxicated in charge of a motor cycle and side-chair on - Taieri road, Roslyn, on October 5. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the accused. Frederick Fraser, a baker in business in Taieri road, Kaikorai, said that about 5.30 p.m. on the day in question he heard a noise outside his shop, and when he went out he saw that a motor cycle and side-chair had collided with a car owned by a Mr Thomson and come to a stop in the gutter near tne car. The accused was lifted off the motor cycle, and he was taken into witness’s yard. Witness had no doubt that the man was intoxicated, there being a terrible smell of whisky about him. To Mr White: It took him two minutes to ascertain that the accused was drunk. Witness sent for the police. Counsel wanted to know why it took the witness so long to find out that the accused was drunk. “How long would it take youP” retorted witness. “That would depend on the circumstances,” said Mr White, to which witness replied, “ Then you are a better expert than I am.” Witness admitted to Mr White that he did not know that accused had received a severe injury to the head. He applied no tests, but merely gave his opinion that the man was drunk. William Alexander Thomson, residing at Halfway Bush, gave evidence as to the damage caused to his car, and said that he assisted to take accused off his cycle. The accused seemed to be very dazed, and to be intoxicated, witness smelling liquor on him. At this stage the defence called Dr Speight who gave evidence that he had examined the accused at the police station shortly after 6 p.m. When witness saw him then his impression was that the accused was under the influence of liquor. His breath was heavy, but witness would not swear it was alcoholic. Two days later the accused consulted witness about a swelling on the head which appeared to be the result of an injury, witness then forming the opinion that this had a good deal to do with the accused’s condition when be was examined previously. To Sub-inspector Cameron witness said he would dispute having said to the constable in the watchhouse that the accused was “a bit squiffy and he was not sober.” After his second examination witness was satisfied that there was an element of doubt as to whether the accused was drunk, in view of the injury to his head. Further evidence was heard for the prosecution. Constable Excell stating that when he arrived he could see that the accused was intoxicated. He smelt of liquor. (Proceeding.)