NEGLIGENT' DRIVING

Evening Star, Issue 21820, 8 September 1934, Page 9

NEGLIGENT' DRIVING

MOTORIST FINED £7 10/Having been convicted of negligent driving, a motorist, James Frederick Martin, who was charged in the Rolico Court yesterday, before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., was fined £7 10s and coats (£3 6s). The defendant, for whom Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared, pleaded not guilty to charges of driving at a speed dangerous to the public, and alternatively with negligent driving. Senior-sergeant Mac Lean said that at 2 p.m, on July 14 the defendant was driving along High street towards the Stock Exchange. When he was almost opposite Dowling street a boy ran across from one side of the street to the other. While doing so he was knocked down by the defendant and was seriously injured. The police suggested that the defendant was going at too fast a speed to give due regard to traffic on the street. Evidence was given by Constable Crawford, who said that the speed of the car was from twenty-five to thirty miles an hour. The boy was carried 40ft before he fell from the car, which travelled another 60ft before it pulled up.

Kenneth Williamson Bayne, driver of one of the Peusiusula Motor Company’s buses, said that ho saw the boy running hard across the road with his head down. He did not see the impact. but agreed with tho constable as to tue distance the car travelled.

Evidence was also given by Arthur Thomas Howio and John Tlackett, tramway employees, and by Constable Holder, who, at the request of the defendant, produced statements made by two visitors from Christchurch named Hughes and Smith, who stated that defendant’s car was not travelling at more than twenty miles an hour. The boy was just missed by another car before he ran into the defendant’s car, apparently without seeing it. Opening the case for the defence, Mr Sinclair submitted that the defendant had been travelling at a perfectly reasonable speed. There was no suggestion that he knew that the boy was going to dart across the road, and it was submitted that the negligence was on the part of the boy. Counsel stressed the importance of tho evidence of Smith and Hughes, who, ho said, were complete strangers. They offered to' go to the police station and make statements because they felt that they were in tho best position to sco the accident and what occurred. Both stated definitely that the boy was thrown clear. Before the accident Hie defendant saw no traffic on his right, and his attention was directed to the left, where passengers were moving about the buses. When the boy was struck the defendant applied his brakes, and at the suggestion of a passenger in the car went on to a convenient place to stop. Evidence was given by the defendant and by Arthur Ernest Johnston, the defendant stating that prior to the accident ho saw the boy stop a few feet from the kerbing on the other side of the road. Ho assumed that the boy had seen the car and therefore did not anticipate danger. In giving his decision, the Magistrate stated that the boy was not absolutely hidden by the traffic, and it was an important fact that the defendant himself knew that there was 1

a boy on the street where the traffic was. If he anticipated no trouble the defendant was negligent. After hearing all the evidence, His Worship had no reasonable doubt that the defendant was clearly negligent in that he saw the boy but proceeded on his course, assuming that everything was in order. He would be convicted of negligent driving, and the charge of dangerous driving would be dismissed. It was not a case for a nominal penalty, and the defendant would be fined £7 10s and costs (£3 6s);