FOUND GUILTY

Evening Star, Issue 22261, 12 February 1936, Page 6

FOUND GUILTY

MOTOR DRIVER CONVICTED DEATH OF YOUTH IH WAITATI SMASH WEST REMANDED FOR SENTENCE A verdict of guilty on the major • count was returned by the jury m the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon against Leslie Raymond West, who was charged with causing, the death of William Eric Johnston and bodily injury to Edward Noad Hayward while driving a motor car. in a state of n> toxication at Wmtati on October 20 of last year; West was remanded in custodv till 10 a. in. to-morrow iol The C (d*i a rges aga iiist Wc st tv ere th at, on October 20. while in a state t intoxication and m charge of a motoi rar. bv an act or omission he causul the death of William Erie Johnston and bodily injury to; Edward Noad Heyward, and that, through .negligence, ha caused the death of Johnston and bodily injury to Hayward. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr I. »• ’Adams) conducted the case for the Crown, and the abused was reprefipnfpd bv Mr O* . Whits* His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy, in Mumming up after .^°V nsG l were dressed the iury, Raid the. charges vere to be treated as alternative ones. and if the first was bold to be proved there would be no need to consider the second' If, however, the first charge were not proven, then it would be thequrys duty to consider the second charge. In connection with the first charge, the jury bad to give thought to two ■questions. Was the accused m charge of the car while m a state of intoxication ? Iff the answer was in the affirmative it wonld .be nece f to hv co ’ l ' sider whether the accused had, by an act or omission in relation thereto, caused the death and the bodily iniurv suffered bv the boys on the motor cvcle The alternative charge was one of negligently driving a motor vehicle and thereby causing death and bodily injury. The members of the jury had to ask themselves whether the accused had driven the car negligently, and, if so, had he, ns a consequence of that, caused death and bodily injury? In a criminal charge contributory negugence was no defence. His Honour pointed out that “ a state of intoxication ” did not imply that a person was drunk, but that he was under the influence of liquor to an extent appreciably affecting his powers of ■ co-ordina-tion and judgment. The jury retired at 3.55 p.m. and. returned at 5.40 p.m., the foreman stating that ho had been requested by a majority of the jury to seek permission to view the scene of the accident. . His Honour; There is a very largo number of photographs and plans of the place at your disposal, and, in my opinion, it is not necessary, in the interests of justice, that there should bo this view. I am unable to grant permission. When the jury returned at 9.40 p.m,. the foreman stated that agreement had been reached on a verdict of guilty on the first count. His Honour: I discharge you from giving a verdict on the second count, which is an alternative. The prisoner at the bar will bo remanded in custody until 10 a.m. on Thursday for sentence.