CASE FOR DEFENCE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20861, 13 August 1942, Page 5

CASE FOR DEFENCE

TE KARAKA ACCIDENT CAR RIDE SEQUEL SUPREME COURT HEARING The case for the defence in the Supreme Court trial arising out of a Te Karaka accident on July 0 was opened before Mr. Justice Johnston and jury this afternoon. The accused were James Arthur Third and Wallace Edwin Reeve, who had pleaded guilty to the conversion of a car but not guilty to a common charge of causing injury under such circumstances that, if death had been caused, the accused would have been guilty of manslaughter; also individual charges of negligent driving, causing injury to an invalid, Thomas Hall, and of failing to stop after an accident. Mr. L. T. Burnard, with him Mr. D. W. lies, appeared for Third, and Mr. A, A. Whitehead for Reeve. Evidence brought by the Crown prosecutor', Mr. Ft W. No.lan, was given by Charles Arnold Lawn, surveyor, Dr. Margaret McDonald, Cook Hospital, Constable J. C. Stewart, Gisborne, Thomas Hall, an invalid, Patricia Mills, Constable W. Greggan, Ernest Annabel, a porter at the Gisborne Hotel, John Gerard Bray, licensee of the Gisborne Hotel, Charles Edgar Parsons, porter-barman at the Albion Hotel, Douglas Parsons, and Detective T. Snedclon. Charles Edgar Parsons and Douglas Parsons said they met the two accused who invited them to go in a car to Te Karaka, and they got into a car. On the way they pulled into a gateway and one of the accused returned to the car with a bottle of wine. When the two Parsons discovered the car had been converted they got out. Reeve ’ was driivng at the time. Submissions by Counsel Mr. Burnard moved for the withdrawal of the charges against Third or: the ground that there was no evidence to support any of the charges, except the one to which he had pleaded guilty. It was not a consequence of the unlawful taking of the car that somebody drove negligently, and counsel quoted law to support a contention that one man was not equally responsible with another who committed an unlawful act, even if previously they had shared in another unlawful act. Mr. Burnard submitted that Third had no part in the alleged negligence. Mr. Whitehead said that Reeve was in charge of the car at certain times, and he agreed in the motion for the withdrawal of the charges against Third, against whom, counsel said, there was insufficient evidence 'to go to the jury. In regard to Reeve, there was some slight evidence to be considered by the jury. His Honour said that the common purpose of the two was not dissipated or severed by negligence, if done by a common design. If was the act. of lone with a common purpose, that is to use the car, and it could not be said that they were not both parties to the act complained of. Other persons, who subsequently got out of the car, would not be parties to what happened. In his view, there was evidence to go to the jury in -which the jury might find that both or one was responsible' for the injuries. He ruled that the charges against Third must go to the jury. No evidence was called by the defence and the Crown prosecutor indicated that he did not propose to address the court. Mr. Burnard, in his address, said it was a peculiar case because one man was trying to clear himself at the expense of the other. There was no evidence which even suggested that Third was driving. Up to the time of the accident, Third had done nothing but assist in the conversion of the car. Reeve was responsible for the speed of the car as it approached and took the corner, and at that point Third would have no' opportunity of doing anything to prevent an accident. (Proceeding.)