HIT AND RUN CHARGE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20860, 12 August 1942, Page 5

HIT AND RUN CHARGE

TOKOMARU BAY CASE ACCIDENT IN TOWNSHIP The trial of Tiri Tipuna on a charge of negligently driving a motor-cycle and causing injury and of failure to stop after an accident was opened in the Supreme Court in Gisborne today before Mr. Justice Johnston and a jury of 12. It was alleged that the accused collided with Renata Huihui, an elderly man, who was seriously injured, the accident occurring at Tokomaru Bay on May 15. The jury comprised the following: Ron G. K. Johnstone, foreman, Arthur Young, ’James A. Vagg, Morris J. Robertson, Clement F. Scholium, John Stevenson, Alfred S. Jerams. Victor Goddard, Dennis Shields, James W. F. Riley, Rupert J. Scott and Norman C. Baynes. Evidence was given by Charles Alfred Lawn, surveyor. Constable E. Wigmore, Waipiro Bay, Dr. Joseph Burnstein, Alexander John Malcolm, engine driver, Ronald Maurice Malcolm, clerk, and son of the previous witness, Hunua Taumutu, waterside worker. Mick Andrews, freezing worker, Oliver Babbington, freezing worker, Frederick Gardner, taxi owner and driver, and Detective-Ser-geant R. H. Waterson, Gisborne. Dr. Burnstein stated that the injured man took 36 hours to fully regain consciousness in Te Puia Hospital. . Detective-Sergeant Waterson said that when he made inquiries regarding the motor-cycle, he found the machine bearing unmistakable signs of being involved in a collision. The accused signed a statement that another Maori "Spider” Samuels, borrowed the motor-cycle on the day in question and the first he knew of a person being hurt was on the following morning. The detective-sergeant stated that the accused had some injuries to his legs, the accused explaining this by saying that he had been injured at the freezing works Ihe previous day, but said that no one had seen the injuries inflicted and he had not reported an accident. The accused did not possess a driving license or certificate of fitness for his machine.

Mr. L. T. Burnard, for the accused, did not cross-examine the witnesses, and did not call evidence. He said in his address to the jury that all that the witnesses had said might be true, but yet the accused might not be guilty. People were on the scene of the' accident almost immediately afterwards, but there was no evidence of the accused having been in the vicinity. and it was not clear from the evidence as to what happened. It was also impossible to claim that the marks either on the man or the bicycle were connected with the accident. Even if the accused was on the scene, there was no proof of negligent driving on the part of the accused. Judged by the evidence, the accident might, have been caused by anyone, and there was no proof that anyone was driving at.an excessive speed at the time of the impact or of negligence on the part of either party. If the jury did conclude that the accused was the driver of the motor-cycle, there was also no evidence to show that the accused did not stop. Tire Crown prosecutor, Mr. F. W. Nolan, did not address the jury. (Proceeding)