FATAL SMASH

Evening Star, Issue 23092, 19 October 1938, Page 1

FATAL SMASH

CAR AND CYCLE COLLIDE MOTORIST ACQUITTED OF NEGLIGENCE After a retirement of 15 minutes the jury in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon acquitted! Charles Herbert Dobson, an engineer, of Oamaru, of the charge of negligent driving and thereby, causing the death of Victor Chittoek. The case was the sequel to a collision between Dobson’s car and a motor cycle ridden by Chittoek at the intersection of Severn and Lune streets in Oamaru on June 4, in which Chittoek was fatally injured. Mr F. B. Adams represented the Crown, and Mr C. J. L. White (instructed, by Messrs Ongley'and Grater) - conducted the case for the defence. The last witness for the Crown was Constable R. J. Miller, of Oamaru* who arrived on the scene of the accident shortly after it occurred. The accused told him that he had been following another car at about 20 miles an hour and. was about to turn into Lune street when he saw the moton cyclist coming at a fast speed. Dobson appeared! to be quite sober. In a subsequent statement the accused said that! he bad spent about half an hour at the Glenavy Hotel, where he had had two whiskies. There were two jars of beer in the car, but these belonged to his passenger. The constable remarked to him that from the markings on the intersection it appeared that the accused had cut the corner, and he replied: “It looks a bit like it.”

To Mr White: Dobson said at tho ' outset that the motor cyclist was travelling at a high speed. Legal argument then ensued as to the admissibility of evidence concerning whether the deceased was in possession of a driver’s license or not and whether he had a warrant of fitness for his machine. After hearing counsel His Honour declined to admit the questions. Mr White said that the defence did not propose to call evidence. Addressing the jury, the Crown Prosecutor stressed the fact that all motorists must rigorously and carefully observe the the law imposed on them. The,simple question before the jury in this case was whether the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the accused or not. In civil cases there was a familiar defence... in contributory negligence, but'in “criminal cases such a defence was not open. It might bo suggested' that the motor cycle had only one brake functioning properly, but Mr Adams pointed out that there was no reasonable evidence to suggest that, this fact had any. bearing on th» effect of, the encounter. He went on configuration of the seen© of 'the accident and the relative positions of the car and the cycle. There was no suggestion in the accused’s statement that the accident was duo to any false manoeuvre on the part of the deceased'. The case for the Crown rested on two points: (1) That-Dobson: did cut the corner, and that, although he did signal that he was about to turn, he turned before he should have; and (2) that he had no right to make a turn across a line of traffic without seeing that the road was clear. Mr White said that there was no suggestion by the Crown of intoxication or recklessness. In the first place the Crown had to prove negligence, and 'that the deceased died because of that negligence. Counsel invited tha jury to consider the question of tho deceased’s own negligence—not his contributory negligence—which was tho crux of the case. It did not follow, said Mr White, that any breach committed by the accused at this corner should amount to negligence. There was nothing to show where the accused commenced to make his turn and began to cut the corner. It was the deceased who crashed into the car, not the other way about. Counsel asked the jury not to forget the attraction and intoxication of speed to young men when they found a powerful motoc cycle between their legs. The foot brake on this particular machine was entirely disconnected, and after tno accident it had been impossible to discover whether the. hand brake was working or not. The machine was, in fact, highly defective. The Crown’s case was completely lacking in proof, and counsel warned the jury against convicting a man on a serious criminal charge on supposition. His Honour summed up, and tho jury retired at 5.30, returning at 5 .45 with a verdict of not guilty. Dobson was thereupon discharged.