APPEAL DISMISSED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20634, 14 August 1941, Page 8

APPEAL DISMISSED

MOTORIST’S CONVICTION INTOXICATION CHARGE PENALTY UNCHANGED “In. my opinion the magi: '.rate was entitled; on the evidence before him, to convict,” elated Mr. Justice Northcrolt in the Supreme Court in Gisborne yesterday afternoon, when dismissing the appeal of Leonard Francis Green against the decision of the magistrate when Green was convicted of having been intoxicated while in charge of a motor car on May 10, the day of the Makaraka races. It was clear that, after Green left the Gisborne Hotel, he was intoxicated, said His Honour, and he was satisfied from Green’s condition at the racecourse prior to returning to town, and the dangerous manner in which he handled the car in the simplest of circumstances, that the appellant was intoxicated while in charge of the car. The appeal, therefore, would be dismissed.. Mr. L. T. Burnard, who appeared for the appellant, asked if His Honour would consider returning Green’s license on condition that he drove only for his employer. His Honour, however, said he was not prepared to make any such condition. If a man elected to get intoxicated to the danger of other people on the road, or drove in an inconsiderate manner, he must be prepared to meet the consequences. His Honour said lie did not propose to interfere with the penalty imposed by the magistrate. Several Witnesses Evidence was brought by Mr. F, Wrey Nolan, who appeared for Alfred DoeL police sergeant, against Whom the appeal was directed, and the following went into the witness box: Mrs. Margaret Joyce Taylor, driver of a car returning from the Makaraka races on May 10; Mrs. Margaret Butler, an occupant of Mrs. Taylor's car; Mesdames Maud Hansen and Josephine Richardson, occupants of the appellant’s car; Thomas George Nowell, borough traffic inspector, who apprehended Green’s car; Sergeant Doel, who conducted the prosecution in the lower court: and Constable G. A. MeCurrach, who was in the watch-house when the appellant was broiight in. Evidence also was given by Dr. H. Angell, who said that when he examined the appellant at 6.40 p.m. Green refused to be put through any tests. From his general demeanour the witness came to the opinion that Green had had a fair amount, of alcohol, but because he could not carry out any tests the witness was unable to say whether Green was in a fit condition to drive a car. Mr. Burnard submitted that there was no case to answer, for there was no evidence to suggest that Green was under the influence of liquor. He was surprised that only two of the lady occupants of the car were brought to give evidence, which, Mr. Burnard contended, did not suggest that Green was intoxicated. What occurred at G. 30 p.m. had no bearing on what occurred at 4.45 or 5 p.m., the time of the alleged collisions. Henry Edward Juson Said in evidence that Green had been in his employ for five years, during which time he was trustworthy and reliable.