MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 20 October 1936, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREYMOUTH MOTORIST FINED. In the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday before Mr IL Morgan S.M. the Traffic the Main Highways, Mr. J. H. Clark, proceeded against Russell Poole on charges (1) that on September 29 >at South Beach he drove a motor vehicle at a speed, Which having regard to all circumstances might have been dangerous to the Public (2) driving a motor vehicle “without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway. Defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges, and on the application of the Inspector the first charge was withdrawn.

The Inspector in evidence said that on September 29 about 5 p.m. defendant passed witness in his car. proceeding to Greymouth. Defendant, followed another par and at the same time kept sounding his horn indicating that he wanted to pass. Witness caught up and .followed, defend lint’s car. Up to the railway crossing at South Beach the speed of the two cars in f-ont of him was between 45 and 50 miles per hour. The speed was eased «t the crossing, but after passing it, the cars '.again accelerated and defendant again sounded his horn. After passing Stratford and Blair’s tram line, the driver of the front, car beckoned on the defendant. and he passed the other car at a very hi ah rate of speed' and continued .to accelerate, W'tness sounded his horn, and passed the other car and the speed of wi'ness’s ear when he passed it was 65 miles per hour. In the meantim'e,- diefendant’s ear was gaining on witness’s Witness continued to accelerate until he got up to a speed of between 75 and 80 miles per hour. Witness again sounded the horn of his car. and whether defendant heard it or saw witness’s car in the mirror, he could not say. but defendant eased 'up and allowed' witness to pass. Witness stopped defendant and questioned h'm as to his actions and he stated that at no time had he exceeded 40 miles Tier hour. Witness happened' to recognise the car defendant was following and interviewed the driver later, who stated that he was travelling at over 45 miles per hour when defendant passed h’m and he estimated defendant’s speed when passing him at between 65 and' 70 miles per hour. At the time there was a fair amount of traffic on the road including cyclists going home from work and pedestrians making from' the bus. There were several houses in the vicin’ty and - the Department had received complaints about defendant' in the neighbourhood as to his driving of his par along this particular portion. of the highwav.. Defendant was the manager of the Bundi Dredge at Camerons and used the road dailv sometimes two or three times a ■dav. He had had occasion to warn defendant on two previous occasions in ronnectmn with his speed on this highway Some months ago defendant was convicted for dangerous driving at Dunedin Defendant stated that he. had been driving on that road for the past two rears And covered 1.800 miles a month on it alone. During the period of two years he had never lied an accident, nor been hit. nor had he hit ■ any pedestrian or cyclist. On one occasion the inspector had warned him for travelling at 50 m ; 1e« per hour, hut it so haphapened that <he ear he had was sealed down tn 25 nri'les per hour. The inspector said there were, complaints about him and told defendant not tn n-n over 50 miles per hour, which the Inspector Giniight was a fair speed on n ma'n highwav. Defendant said that i' ; s car was n modern one. When passing the other car he had the right-of wav w'fh a clear vision, and ho annrmchinv traffic or crossroad He had h/.p f 0 ficce’erate a IPtle to pass, the other cnr. Os it would' have boon fool’A to keep neck and neck with h’m. The A nr was a. 19.15 C’hrvslpv and wns 100 pot cent efficient in ever'- respect. The Magistrate said that according ‘n fonts as a l le"ed th A dangerous driv■nrr ohoro-e might easily have been pronnodod with. Ho was ou’te "A+isped that the inspector’s ev’denco mpr. enrrprf and tl.nr 1,0 nlwa—vprl rlnConrlnnt’s. Tn'’T.nn- pf rlrG-ing The offenno in his opinion, was proved and defendant most v- '■nny’i’tod Tt was sue’’ dp.norrnn~ 0 „ the highways that ea”s"d deaths fo nSO’-o of the l’i crl' V" ”S. ■ Defendant wns bi pot ‘n have, had an accident on this b’gh-’’-nv po '■nmnlaints b.nd b nA n rpppivnd nPont defendant, who used the high-

a-Gvon:' worthin’’ inter-defe-ndanl. A nf 2 with If) s eo s t'-' was indicted.