CARELESS DRIVING

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 March 1942, Page 2

CARELESS DRIVING

F. L. TURLEY CONVICTED. COLLISION AT SOUTH BEACH. Holding that the defendant had been careless in not seeing the parked car with which he collided, y irrespective of whether the tail-light 1 was burning, upon which point there j was a conflict of evidence, Mr G. G. 1 Chisholm, S.M., in the Magistrate s c Court at Greymouth, yesterday sfter- E noon, convicted Frederick Lovell j Turley, union secretary, 61 Grey- c mouth, on a charge of driving a motor j car without due care and attention < and imposed a fine of £7, with costs t and expenses. , , , . 1 Turley, who conducted nis own < defence, had pleaded not guilty to a t charge that, on December 4, 1941, on s the Greymouth-Hokitika main high- j way, at South Beach, he did drive a motor car without due care and at- i tention. Lengthy evidence was heard i in the case, a report of the greater part being published in yesterday_s 1 “Star.” Senior Sergeant G. F. 1 Bonisch conducted the case for the 1 police. . < When the hearing was resumed 1 after the luncheon adjournment, de- 1 fendant intimated he would call evi- 1 dencc. Archibald Clark, of Kumara, saict 1 that on the night of the accident he ; was returning from Greymouth in a : car. Just as he came over the Lor- . ough boundary he saw the tail-light of'a parked car on his left, and an- : other car approaching, travelling to- 1 wards Greymouth. Witness pulleu out to dodge the parked car on tne left. There was another small car parked on the right-hand side, without lights. As witness passed the car on his left, he could see that theie was going to be a smash and swerved again to his left. He had not noticed the car on his right until ho pulled out to .go round the car on his left. , TT To the Senior Sergeant: He was a member of the Timber Union many years ' ago. Defendant, was then secretary to the Union, me parked car on his left was as iar Oil the road as it could get. The two parked cars were about 40 to 50 leoi apart The first time, he had discussed the case witn defendant since the accident was on Saturday la To the S.M.: He did not speak to Mrs Tavlor. the owner of the small car, after the accident. Hugh William Brown, garage proprietor, of Greymouth, said ne wao called by defendant to remove his car after the accident, ana .he detailed the positions in which he found the two cars. When he openeq the door of defendant’s car, said witness, there was a bottle of beer lying on the front seat and, at defendant’s request, he put it m his pocket. , . , To the Senior Sergeant: Defendant’s car could have lifted tne small car up without the brakes ol the small car having any effect on the impact. Addressing the Court, defendant submitted that the evidence was quite clear that the lights of the small car were not on and this, together with the fact that it Yi as [ parked in a dangerous place, was tne J cause of the accident. The onus, ne said, was just as much on the person who parked a car to use reasonable care as on the person who was driving a car. The S.M.: I do not want to hcai t you on that. 1 am not here to hear a civil claim for damages, or what the other side could have done. Do understand that you will submit tnal you were not driving without aue care and attention? Defendant: I submit that extra care was used by me to avoid smashing into the approaching car, when there was no possibility of either 01 us pulling up, after the small car came into view. MAGISTRATE’S VIEW. The S.M. said he would hold it proven that two cars were parked on the road. The constable estimated that they were two chains apart and the witness Clark said it was ‘tO to oU feet. It really resolved itself into a question of distance. The evidence was that the small car was parked with two wheels off the bitumen ano the other two a foot on. Clark saict that the other car was parked as lai off the road as it could get. He (the S.M.) was going to assume that n was as far off the road as the otnei (Mrs Taylor’s). Suppose he gave them each two feet of bitumen, tnai still left 14 feet of bitumen available and they were certainly over 40 leer apart. That being so, there was no reason why two cars, travelling at a reasonable-speed should, not have passed. He thought that, if defendant had seen the small car, there, would have been no difficulty in passing. So the cause of the accident was that defendant did not see the parkec, car. There was a direct conflict ol evidence as to whether the lights Oi the small parked car were on. He (the S.M.) accepted the evidence ci Mrs Taylor that she did leave the lights of her car on. That, of course, was 15 minutes earlier and he aid not j suppose it could be suggested that anyone interfered with them m tne meantime. Also, the evidence was that it was almost a new car. Apart from the question whether there were lights on the car or not, continued the S.M., he accepted the evidence that it was a bright moonlight night and it should not have required a tail-light for cle I endant to; have seen the car. He (the S.M./ thought, that defendant had shown carelessness in that respect, whethei it was on account of excessive speed or not he did not know. The evidence was that the object should have been seen a quarter of a mile away, approaching on a straight !j. ne ’ did not know why defendant should not have seen it until he was right on it if h'e was driving with proper caie and attention. For that reason, ho (the S.M.) thought the charge had been proved —that defendant was driving without due care and attenSenior Sergeant intimated that he would ask for witness s expenses for Mrs Taylor, amounting io -£2 asked that the S.M. make the penalty sufficiently large so that he could appeal. In reply to a question by the S.M., the Senior Sergeant saia that defendant had one previous conviction for a similar offence, last year. in that case, also, the penalty had been raised to enable defendant to appeal, but he did not go ahead with it. Defendant: I think I am entitled to reply to that ■ The S.M.: Will you take your scat, please. It is only on the question 01 pen'alty. You will be fined £7. Defendant was also ordered to pay 12/- Court costs and £2/1/11 witness’s expenses.