CRIMINAL SITTINGS

Evening Star, Issue 22087, 22 July 1935, Page 10

CRIMINAL SITTINGS

SERIOUS CHARGES AGAINST MOTOR DRIVERS ALLEGED BREAKING AND ENTERING

“You will be sorry to observe that it has been disclosed that no fewer than four persons have lost their lives on the roads in this district in recent months,” said His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy in addressing the grand jury at the opening of the quarteiTy criminal sessions of the Supreme Court this morning. “In one case a little boy was killed by a motor lorry on a footpath, and in another case a boy riding a bicycle was killed by a motor car. “The third accident _ resulted in two persons losing their lives. The driver of the motor truck was committed for trial, but he himself has since died. Whether or not there is a responsibility resting upon the drivers of the motor vehicles is a matter upon which at the moment I shall say nothing further.”

His Honour said the charges which the grand jury had to consider involved three persons. Two charges arose out of the conduct of motor vehicles. In one case the accused . person was charged with negligent driving, causing death, and in the other case the charge was that, being in charge of a motor vehicle in a state of intoxication, by an act or omission in relation thereto, the driver caused death. The charge in the first case arose out of a collision between a motor lorry and a motor car at the intersection of two narrow streets. The evidence would be that, after the vehicles collided, the lorry left the road and travelled on to the footpath, and there killed the little boy, who was walking or running along. To drive negligently was to drive without exercising that care which in the circumstances would be exercised by an ordinary reasonable driver. It might be that at the intersection of narrow streets it was not sufficient merely to slacken speed, but it might in addition be necessary to sound the warning horn and be vigilant to react to other traffic which might be met. . The second charge was of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle, killing a boy in Stuart street, said His Honour. The facts in both cases were simple, and the grand jury would readily follow the evidence -without his detailing it. The remaining charges to be considered were breaking and entering, and alternatively theft, and receiving stolen property. Those charges were against one man. The evidence was of the usual kind, and would be readily followed by the grand jury.

GRAND. JURY. The following grand jury was empanelled:—Edgar Christophers Hazlett (foreman), David Richard Noble, Andrew Galland Melville, George Walter Lanham, Sydney George Smith, Arthur Joseph Allen, James Rich Dreaver, Gerald Benson, Sydney Lucien Scoble, Douglas George Adam, Magnus Whitefield Johnson, James Henry Duncan, Arthur Macßae, Gilbert Baird Ogilvie, David George Mowat, Arthur Vincent' Gain, John Leslie Oliver, Percival Rouse, Peter Gray, James Alfred Aitchison, John Rutherford Paterson, Eric Davidson, Percy James' Rendall. DEATH SINCE COMMITTAL. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F, B. Adams) • mentioned that in the case in which John Gear Garrick was charged with negligently driving a truck on the Portobello road,. thereby causing the death of two women, the accused person had died since his committal for trial. After formal proof of death had been tendered the proceedings were abandoned. TRUE BILLS. The grand jury, after a retirement of nearly an hour, returned a true bill in the case of James Sylvester Henderson, charged with negligent driving, causing death. True bills were also returned in the other two cases. MOTORIST CHARGED. James Sylvester Henderson pleaded not guilty to a charge of negligent driving of a motor lorry, thereby causing death. ' . , „ ~ Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for the accused. ~, ’ „ The Crown Prosecutor (Mr b. B. Adams), in opening the ease, said the accident occurred on April 20, and resulted in the death of Arnold Patrick Healey, a little boy of five years. The members of the jury had a heavy responsibility towards the accused in the first place, and secondly because of the fact that the verdicts of juries set a standard of care for drivers in charge of motor vehicles. The accident occurred at the intersection of David and Marion sfeets, both narrow streets, and great care was necessary in approaching the intersection. Drivers were not permitted to cross intersections at over 15 miles an hour, but that did not mean that in the ease of every intersection a motorist should drive at that speed, safety lieing the first consideration. A collision took place between the motor lorry driven by tho accused and a motor car. Tho lorry mounted the footpath and struck the boy. It was claimed that the accused should have given way tft

the motor car on the intersection. The motor car, which came out of Marion street, had crossed the tram lines in David street before the collision occurred, and it was claimed that ho could, or should, have seen the motor car. In a statement made to the police the accused said the sun dazzled him, and he did not sic the car till he was close up to it. Counsel commented that, if a motorist was prevented from seeing what was ahead he had no right to proceed. If his vision was obscured he should bring his car to a standstill. Dr A. G. Gumming, house surgeon at the Public Hospital, described the injuries sustained by the boy. His condition was one of severe shock, and he showed signs of severe abdominal injuries, with bruises and abrasions over his body. An operation was performed, and he was given a blood transfusion. However, ho failed to respond, and collapsed and died early the next morning. In the doctor’s opinion death was due to shock, following severe injuries. Evidence was given by the mother of the boy and by Constable Wroblenski, and the court adjourned till the after--0000)1