LEGAL PROBLEM

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20525, 8 April 1941, Page 13

LEGAL PROBLEM

“CONTROL" OF TRUCK OWNER A PASSENGER CASE ON APPEAL A case of interest concerning whai the Solicitor-General, Mr. H. H. Cornish, K.C., described as an admittedly difficult piece of legislation, which was of general importance, was considered by the Court of Appeal in Wellington. It was in the form of a case stated for the opinion of the court by Mr. Justice Fair, after the findings of a jury in Auckland on charges of causing injury with a motor-truck and failure to stop and render assistance. The Solicitor-General appeared for the Crown, and Mr. T. P. Cleary for Norman Harrison. Harrison was charged in Auckland in October last with being intoxicated in charge of a truck oil the main road at Kumeu on July IC, and, by act or omission, causing bodily injury to Stanley Robert Nixon.

Harrison was also charged, as the driver of the vehicle, with failure to stop, failure to ascertain whether injury had been caused, and failure to render all practicable assistance. Alfred Beard Talbot was charged with negligently driving the same vehicle and causing injury to Nixon, and faced, as driver, counts similar to the second, third and fourth counts against Harrison.

The jury found. Talbot guilty of negligent driving causing injury, and acquitted him on the other three counts. Harrison was acquitted on the first count of causing injury while intoxicated in charge, but was found guilty on the other three counts. Talbot was sentenced to three months’ hard labour.

Mr. Justice Fair postponed sentence on Harrison and admitted him to bail, submitting the following points for consideration by the Court of Appeal; Whether Harrison could properly be convicted on the second, third and fourth charges in view of the fact that the jury found Talbot to be the driver of the car at the time of the accident; whether Harrison could be convicted on those charges in view of the fact that Talbot, the driver, was acquitted by the same , jury on similar counts; and, if so, whether there should be a new trial 'in respect of the' second, third, and fourth charges against Harrison, in view of the fact that his counsel was stopped when addressing certain points to the jury.

. The Appeal Court reserved its decision.