“HIT AND RUN” CHARGES

Grey River Argus, 4 March 1937, Page 6

“HIT AND RUN” CHARGES

O’DONNELL ACQUITTED Supreme Court Hearing at Greymouth Keen interest centred in the criminal session of the Supreme Court at Grey, mouth yesterday when only one criminal ease, that involving a young Greymouth motorist, John Cyril O’Donnell, single, aged 27, a trucker, who stood his trial on charges of negligent driving, causing death, and of failing to stop and render all possible practical assistance. The charges arose as the result of a motor cyclist, William Ramsay Burt, being found fatally injured in the vicinity of his motor-cycle in High Street, on August 29 last. The gallery of the Court was packed throughout the day and evening, and intense interest was shown in the proceedings. The second indictment was laid under the new Motor Regulations Act, 1936.

His Honor, Mr Justice Northcroft, presided. After a retirement of 2-1 hours the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty on both counts, and ' accused was discharged.

The following Grand Jury was em-panelled:—-Alan Augustus Adams, Edwardl George Ashby, Thomas Bertie Baty, Percy ;Slyd(ney Beck, Ivan Thomas Bennington, William Beresford, Joseph Bruerton, Fred Congreve, Allan John Fairmaid, Walter Leslie Gittos, William Greenhill senr., John Webber- Greenslade, George Groom". John Edward Hadlund, William Olaf Haglund, John Galbraith Hambleton, Alfred William Harrison, William Hill. Hayton Onslow Judd. George- Frederick Knapp, Clive Lawrence Kettle, Neil Brodie McCallum, Leonard McGlashan. Mr. J. W. Greenslade was chosen as foreman.

His Honor in life charge to the Grand Jury said that, as the Grand Jurors -representing this district, they were t 0 be congratulated on the com tinued freedom from serious crime in the district. The West Coast, he said deserved' commendation for the relative absence of criminal work in tho courts. On this occasion there was only one ease which was of rather a ser. ions nature, and against a man named O’Donnell. The Grand Jury was not to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, but examine as far as they considered necessary whether or not accused should be placed upon his trial. The- evidence showed quite clearly that both the deceased and accused had been attending a social function and that the deceased left sometime ahead of accused on his motor cycle, accused aparently driv an old car. ‘ Later the deceased Burt was found fatally injured on the road, and' it was quite clear in the evidence that he had been knocked over by someone. It wa s later found that aecuseds car had marks on it, and the Crown case wa s that the explanation of accused as 'to the marks on the ear were unsatisfactory, and that the marks were a clear indication of a collision with the motor-cycle. The marks at the scene of the accident •were an inference that there was reckless driving. Regarding the charge of failing -t 0 stop and ascertain if Burt had been injured, the evidence turned almost entirely on the marks on the car. and cycle so far as the Crown case was concerned, as against the story o.f accused. The Grand Jury retired at 10.55 a.m. and returned at 11.45 a.m., with a true bill on both counts.

John Cyril O’Donnell, 27, trucker, Was charged (1) That on August 29 at Greymouth he negligently drove a motor-ear, and thereby caused the death of William Ramsay Burt (2) that on August 29 at Greymouth, be. ing the driver of a motor vehicle, where an accident had directly arisen from the use of such motor vehicle to William Ramsay Burt, he did fail to stop and ascertain whether he had in. jured that person and did not render to such injured' person all practical assistance.

Accused pleaded not guilty to both charges. Accused was represented by Mr. C. S. Thomas.

Mr. F. A. Kitchingham, Crown prose, cutor, conducted the case for the prosecution. The folowing Common Jury was empannelled:—Francis Eric Stent (fore, man), Wallace Newman Messenger, Emil Percy Peters, Thomas Condon, Thomas James Hornsby, Ernest Christian Hansen, Thomas Henry Roy Tilleyshort, Frederick William Trainer, Arthur .John Boucher. John James Kennedy, William Alexander Lindsay, Jame s Sedgemere Howson. Six prospective Jurors were chai, lenged by Mr. Thomas and a similar number were ordered t 0 stand aside by the Crown Prosecutor. ' The Crown prosecuto_r said that the proceedings arose from the .death of a young man named Burt in High Street early on the morning of August 29 last. That night a dance wag held at Paroa anid ‘it would be shown that three parties attended the dance, namely ‘deceased Burt, and two other men named Minehin and Hector on motor cycles; a man named Daly anid' a man named Webster in a car; and l a ear admittedly driven by accused with men named Orr, Tailing and Burn as passengers. It was raining ■on the night in question and visibility was not very good. He travel'seid the evidence, —which the said would be tendered —at considerable length.

‘ Evidence was then tendered for the prosecution similar t. o that, heard on October 2, 1936, at the lower court hearing and Coroner’s inquest. Henry Hutchinson, surveyor, (Public Department, produced (four plan s of a portion of High 'Street, which were prepared by him under instructions from Detective-Sergeant H. E. Knight. Lawrence Andrew, Inkster, Photographer, produced four potographs of a badlv-damaged motor-car, taken in Shields’ Lane, off Tarapuhi Street, after the car had been pushed out of a small garage there. Dr W. A Bird, gave evidence of his examination of ' the body of the deceased Burt in High Street on August 29 and the injuries that he had sustained. From the lack of external injury witness conclude® that force had "been applied through medium of a rounded, possibly a resilient object, to the left mastoid region of the skull. To Mr. Thomas: He could not say whether the body had been removed when he arrived. He did not expect that the injuries would result from a fall, from a cycle, but if deceased had ■pitched forward in a fall from the cycle on to the bitumen the injuries sustained might Eave been possible.

To Mr. Kitchingham: There would require- to be an element of speed if the injury were due- to a fall from the machine. He d'iid- not think it was possible for deceased to have crawled any distance 'with the- injuries he had sustained.

Clarence Keith Fleming, machinist, a -fellow-employee of the deceased Burt gave evidence of tlhe sale of a pair of goggles and gauntlets to deceased-. The goggles produced in court he said were similar to those sold to Burt. Richard Alfred Batstone , manager of -the- Standard Optical C'o.. of Australasia, Ltd Christchurch, stated -that he had- inspected a broken goggle and four small pieces of glass shown to hfm by the Detective-Sergeant. He came to the conclusion that the pieces or glass were part, of the original goggle, beino- identical in thickness and colour, wlhile the largest piece fitted into tho laminated part of -the goggle. I also bore a corresponding fracture. He had no doubt at all that the glass belonged to the goggle. In -reply to Mr. Thomas witness expressed the opinion that one would' not find such a similar comparison which was so conclusive. It was pos. sible. but highly improbable. Andrew Ramsay Burt, engineer, ot Denniston, said that the deceased Burt was his son, 18 years of age and apprentice engineer, employed at the Greym-outh Dispatch Foundry. Wi--ness recognised-, the helmet produced as that- of his -son’s. The goggles produced were like those of his sons. The ’catlings produced were his son s. M ness also recognised -the -overcoat pro. dU James Hector, engineer, of Runanga, said that -the deceased Bint wore goggles of the same type as those produced in Court, -d the elastic band off a helmet was the sam . that worn by Burt on his helmet. W tness recounted the lourney to the Paroa dance with Mineinn and deceased. Through striking a pot-hole near Sawyer’s Creek bridge, Burt fell off his machine and broke the. clutch lever, which deceased placed w his pocket The foot-rest on the left side was bent back against the gear-box. and Burt kicked it until he got it straight They remained at the Paroa dance until it ended, about 14a amr On returning to Greymouth it raining heavily and visibility was bad Witness and Minehin left Buit at Shakespeare Street and did not see him ' To Mr Thomas: Burt put out his lights about U miles from Paroa for a few seconds. -Witness found out later that the generator on deceased s motor-cycle had become disconnected Deceased had removed it and had not put it in again. Obviously deceasec was afraid his lights might run down. Coming home deceased was still running the generator without connecting up the battery. After deceased left them at Shakespeare Street, he . could not say if deceased had again switched off his lights. It was teeming with rain and visibility was very bad. Visibility was extremely bad m High Street, on account of it being composed of black bitumen. Witness told Burt it was a silly thing to switch on his lights. High 'street was one that absorbed the light in bad w.eathei. Witness put up his goggles owing to th-e rain. To Mr Kitchingham: High Street was equipped with the ordinary lighting system and was a w-ide street. Mrs Rosaline Worsley. of Paroa. secretary of the Paroa Women’s Institute/ said that she saw three young men, one of whom was Minehin. sheltering in the porch after the Paioa dance. After they had' left she heard the noise of motor-cycles departing. She walked towards her home, pext to the hotel, and noticed a car in the gateway It seemed as if it would not go. and some men were trying to start it. but she did not recognise them. The car was still there when she went into her home, and she did not know how many persons were with the car. It twas a five-seater, opencurtain car. Witness also saw another car, further past the school. To Mr Thomas: So far as she could remember the rear light on the car past the school had its rear reflector functioning. Frederick Webster, a joiner, stated that, accompanied hv Leo. Daly, he drove to Paroa on the night of August 28. arriving about 10 p.m. and leaving after 1.50 a.m. for Greymouth. When leaving Paroa they were preceded by about- five minutes by two motor-cycles. He did not again see the motor-cycles. He stopped at Daly’s house, in front of the Technical School, in High Street, and could hear the engine of a motorcycle about 150 yards away, but the cycle did not appear” to be moving. After he had been talking to Daly a few minutes, a car passed heading for C'.tymouth. It had no tail-light, and was travelling at 35 or 40 miles per hour. It was making a good deal of row. After it had got to the place about where he thought the cycle was, he heard a crash, but th-e car did not stop and he thought that there could be no damage done. Afer talking for a while longer Daly went inside his home, and witness drove on. After going a short distance he saw something lying on the side of the .road. He got out of his car and found Burt lying about 40 feet away from his cvcle on the town side of the machine. Witness reported the matter to the police. Witness said he saw accused in the hotel at Paroa about midnight. When the ear passed him in High Street it sounded like an old car. Visi. bility was bad at the tim e and rain was falling. To Mr Thomas: It was raining hard an f ] visibility was had. When the motor-cycles left Paroa, the lights on them were going. He did not remember saying in the Lower Court that he knew Burt was riding one of the machines; that he considered the car was travelling at 35 miles per hour or that h e could not remember if the lights on the motor-cycles were functioning or not. Possibly he did so.

» Leo Vincent Daly, mill hand, Dobson, said that he saw Burt at the dance at Paroa. He gave corroborative evidence. Soon after the car passed them in High Street, witness said that he remarked to Webster that the car must have hit the motor, cycle. As th e car went on, however, he considered that he was mistaken, He was of the opinion that the motorcycle was stationarv in High Street.

Mr Thomas: Whatever the crash was, the fact remains you did not go down to the scene of the accident to see what happened? Witness: No.

Eelward John Bone, car-painter, High Street, stated that early on the morning of August 29 his wife got up to attend to the baby. H e asked her the time, and she said that it was 2.10 a.m. Just then witness heard a car coming along* High Street and remarked that someone was apparently in a hurry to get somewhere. Shortly afterwards he heard a slight crash,

and his wife asked if- he thought it was an accident. Witness replied that he did not think the noise was loud enough. He did not hear the ear stop and thought no more of the matter. When his wife came back to bed their clock showed 2.20 am., but it was ten minutes fast. From the sound ot the engine, he considered the car would bp doing from 40 to 45 miles per hour. A minute or two following the crash, witness heard a ear stop. To Mr Thomas: His house was a few doors south of the place where the accident occurred. He could not recall where the car started up. He did not actually take, a great deal of notice. . n Mrs Lynda Bone, wife of the previous witness, stated that she heard a motor-cvcle back-firing on the road towards Greymouth, but it was not mov, ino- She 'thought someone was trying to°fix it She heard it for about five minutes.'then got up to attend to her child She went back to bed and then heard a car. The cycle engine was not then running. Witness heard a slight bang, and asked if the car had hit something, but her husband said that the noise was not loud enough. Witness did not hear a car stop She heard a car start, and another car then passed in the direction of Greymouth She first heard the motorcycle engine about 2.5 a.m. and hoard the car about five minutes later. To Mr Thomas: She thought the ban<r was not loud enough to have been caused by a collision. It was a wet dirtv night, raining hard, and the car’that' passed was making a big noise. Himh William Brown, motor engtn. eer. who examined the Morris car, also an A.J.S. motor-cycle in the custoc.y of the police, stated that the left front mudguard of the car was badly dented and torn, the left front lamp was pushed back, the tyre carTier twisted behind the left front mudguard, the left running board dama<red the left rear-guard torn, anr, the front wheel buckled. There were particles o- broken glass on the left runnin<r board. He considered the damacre* was caused by the car striking something on its left-hand side Witness noticed some red paint under the right handle-bar. To Mr Thomas: Th e damage to ’he motor cycle was consistent with be.ng si-.vek bv something going faster on the right-hand side. It was difficult to say where the rider and a cycle would finish in a "kid When he examined the motor ear, the headlights were in order, but th e tail-light was not functioning. Witness did examine the lights on the motor-cycle and could not. say if it was connected up. High Street was the worst in Greymouth as far as visibility was concerned.

Sergeant J. Tsbister stated that on Seotember 3, in eonseouenee of inquiries made, he located a MorrisCowlev roadster in a lock-up garage in Shields Lane. The doors of the garage were shut and padlocked, hut he found upon trying them that the bolt which held the doors on the inside had not been fastened. The ear inside was painted ret,' with lilae.k mudguards. There was no front number plate, but the roar one bore the number 24-929. The front number plate was found in the car afterwards. Behind the car in the garage was a redcoloured spare wheel, with a damaged tyre on it, and also a damaged tube lying nearby. There was a cut about 14 inches on the side of the tyre, whilst, there was a similar corresponding cut on the tube. The ear had no spare wheel on the carrier, which was fitted to the running' boar r ] behind the front left mudguard. The car was badlv damaged especially the front left mud. guard. The car showed recent damage as if it had been in a collision, especial.' ly on the left side. The left front lamp was twisted. The left mudguar-' showed signs of having recently been wiped on the top- Tho left hand front tyre was flat, and the front wheel was buckled. The front left, hand mudguard support was cracked and bent and the spare wheel was missing from th e carrier on the left hand side. The tube on the spare wdieel showed that it had recently been immerse/] in dirty, muddy water. The running board showed recent breakage. Splintered glass lying along the left hand running board was gathered up by the Detective-Sergeant. There was no glass damage visible on the car. The only glass on the car was the windshield and it was not damaged. Accused when witness went to see him at his home at Willis Street, point, ed out to witness an electric light pole which bore marks of injury about 30 inches from the ground. The mark did not appear to witness to be of recent origin. Witness placed a pencil mark aroun ( ] the mark as, in his opinion, the damage to the pole was not in any way consistent, with the damage to the car. Thej'e was no glass about the pole. To Mr Thomas: He did not take any statements from Tailing, Orr or Burn. Plain. Clothes Constable J. P, Clements said that he interviewed aecused on September 2, and obtained a statement from him in which he admitted attending the dance at Paroa in compan}' w'ith Jack Orr, Pat Burn and Mick Tailing on the night of August 28. Witness detailed the damage to the Morris. Cowley car, and stated that he was present with Sergeant Isbister on the night of September 3, when the electric light pole was exam-’ ined in Willis Street. Accused was present and indicated a mark on the pole, which it'-was alleged had been caused by his car in a collision on August 28. The mark was more of a graze. He say no glass or fittings attached to the post. The car was still in the same condition except that it had been covered by flood water on October 10, and the running board was covered with silt.

To Mr Thomas: Witness took a state, ment from Burn. He knew that statemonts were taken from Tarling and Orr

Detective-Sergeant H. E. Knight, stated he visited the scene of the accident soon after it occurred. He detailed the position of the body and the cycle. Between the grass and bitumen he found a pair of fractured goggles, which had the glass shattered and some missing. He also found the broken kick-starter of the motor-cycle. The carrier, or rest, of the bicycle was down, and the machine was in gear. The lights were not burning on the bieyelo. The rear reflector and mudguard on the right hand side had been bent forward. Deceased had his motor helmet on when picked up. He gave corroborative evidence regarding the visit to the garage in Shields Lane. Accused made a statement to witness on September 3 at the Police Station in which he denied being involved in any accident other than that in which h e ran into the post in Willis Street, which had caused the damage to the pole, prior to his going to Paroa on the night of August 28. Accused said he could not account for the glass on the side of the. car. Accused admitted being rhe driver of the car, which was owned by Byrne. On finding the ear in the garage,

continued witness, he noticed a quantity of broken blass on the running board. It was also on the flange of the rear mudguard, between it and the running board from where the running board had been torn away. Witness took four of the larger pieces of glass to Christchurch, where the expert examined them. Accused went, with witness to the garage and identified the car as that referred to in his statement. Accused was arrested on September 14 but made no statement. Underneath the motor-cvcle handle bar there was a lever and on it was red paint, whirl’ was' foreign to the machine. To Mr Thomas: Witness found that the generator on the motor-cycle was disconnected. When switched on the lights worked effectively, but lhei were switched off on witness’s arrival on the scene of the accident. It was difficult to say how old the buckle in the ear wheel was. Only the crack in the spoke .gave him the impression that the damage was of recent origin. The Crown’s case concluded at 4.25 p m and after Mr Thomas had intimated that he did not intend to call any evidence for the defence, the Court adjourned for a few minutes. The Court resumed at 4.35, when Mr Kitchingham addressed th o jury. He said that the charge was one that designated a "hit-and-run” motorist. It appeared that the defence would be that Burt was killed through his motor cycle skidding and that, as it did so, the whole right side of the cycle was pushed in and backwards. However, the evidence was that those parts of the cycle referred Io were pushed for. ward.' The motor cycle was undoubtedly stationary with the engine running until the time of the impact, tin. doubtedly by a motor car. It was per. feetly plain’ that Burt had not put a leg over the machine to start it oil again. The damage to the ear was conclusive enough evidence to show that it had been involved in a more severe impact than that explained by accused. Burt was injured behind the left knee and this would be hard to explain by his cycle skidding. The whole theory as to the cause of the accident was perfectly obvious and was supported by the evidence. Some of the damage to the ear might have been caused as.accused explained ,but not all of it. In addition accused had not explained the presence of broken glass on the running'board of his car, or tlie presence of red paint on the motor cycle. There was paint missing from the car accused had been driving. There seemed to be only one answer to the question when it was considered that Burt had been killed, his goggles fractured and portions which filled perfectly, were found on the running board of the car.

Mr Thomas began, his address at 5.5 p.m. The defence, he said, , relied on the inherent weaknesses in the Crown’s case. The onus was upon the Crown to prove accused’s guilt. The matter had already been before the Coroner’s Court when evidence was taken and the learned magistrate had made certain remarks us to what lie thought, had happened, ft did not matter two straws what the magistrate thought. He (counsel) had not the slightest doubt that many of the jurymen knew of this ease and had discussed it. He asked in the interests of fair play, that the jury should not rely on any preconceived ideas, but con. sider the ease on the evidence heard that dtay. The evidemce (for the Crown, said Mr Thomas was purely eir. einnstantial. He referred to the fact that the Crown had not called the evidence of accused’s companions, which was apparent proof ’that they had told the same story as O’Donnell that no accident had occurred and that instead he had struck the pole. The evidence of Crown witnesses, Brown and Dr. Bird was that the accident to Burt was possible as the result of a skid. Was it not possible that the was in a hurry to iget home due to the bad night? He might have been involved in a spill. After the accident th e motor-cycle engine could have continued to run on until the carburettor was finished,, and it then stopped.

The iQrown’s case consisted of three points—the damage to the car, glass on the running board, and the paint found. O’Donnell in his statement had said that he had an accident earl'er in the evening when he collided with a post. It was known that Burt had earlier fallen off his cycle and had idiamagcd it jliefore 'going to Paroa. and the' jury were equally entitled to believe the account of prisoner's earlier accident. The glass and paint could be explained. A. Crown witne s had stated that the celliloid in between the glass, had buckled in the meantime, and he could not now fit the glass properly. Counsel said he contended that the glass never fitted at all, and he would ask hl's Honour to permit the jury to take the goggios and glass with them when they retired.

Intervening, his Honour said that counsel should have asked the witness about the glass not fitting. It was an expert matter and not one on which the jury should be asked to express their opinion, against that of an expert.

Mr Thomas: I ask that the jury "be allowed to take the glass with them. His Honour: You must accept my ruling. Mr Thomas repeated his .request, and his Honour, saying that he would direct the jury, requested counsel to continue his address. Mr Thomas said his, contention was that 'it was not evidence of an expert nature.

His Honour: It was open to you ro call evidence of an expert in contradiction of the Crown’s evidence, but you did not do so. I would be failing in my duty if I permitted the jury to- deal with the question as if they were experts. You will please proceed to address the jury.

Mr Thomas said that there was no evidence of any thing having been done for five days after the accident. and during the whole of that period anyone could have been at the garage. Constable Murray, who was there on the third day, was not called by the Crown. There was interference of some sort by someone. How did the tyre get wet with muddy water five days later? During those five days some malicious person, including the real criminal, could have gone to the garage and interfered with the ear. The jury must remember that in piisoner’s statement he said that he locked roe garage, yet when the police found it, it was unlocked. If the police story was to be believed, then O’Donnell was a callous blackguard who had killed! another man and cleared out, leaving him on the road. O’Donnell’s story was that the tyre was burst when he ran into a post, and that he later took and left it at the garage. Why would he do that if he was guilty of the charges? He asked if’ the jury could believe that the glass

could possibly have fallen on the running board of the car travelling at 40 miles per hour on a wet night over bad roads, and remained there all the time. The whole of the evidence about the glass was quite unsatisfactory, and the jury could not be, convinced beyond all reasonable doubt by it. The defence admitted that the car had red wheels, but that point proved nothing. The red paint might have come from a hundred places, and until they knew exactly where, the evidence must not be regarded as of importance. There were various shades of red paint, and he asked why had the jury not been told what sort of red pai’nt it was, or that it was the same in both places? The jury could ask did O’Donnell know that the collision took place? He suggested that they could not be satisfied and that if the driver did not know, there was no case to answer on that point, which was an essential one. Counsel quoted legal references on several points concerning witnesses and evidence. The paramount word in the first charge was negligence, and the jury had to be satisfied that it was such negligence as would have a material effect upon the condition of the matter. The Crown must prove negligence by O’Donnell. It had been suggested that O’Donnell came down the road and had run over Burt, but there was a possible explanation that prisoner might have been coming down the road, and that deceased may have run right into his car. That would not make him guilty, and if it was proved ttiat a collision took place, it still had to be proved that accused knew there had been a collision. They knew that Burt was, doing something to his cycle, and that after the accident hisi lights were off. The surface of the road and the absorption of light on it had to be considered. Suspicion was not sufficient, and the jury must be satisfied beyond doubt that O’Donnell did collide with the cycle. Counsel’s address, concluded at 5.55 p.m. HIS HONOUR’S SUMMING UP. His Honour then began his summing

up. He said that it was the duty of the Crown to pyove all the facts, upon which they asked the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty, to the proper satisfaction of the jury. If the jury entertained any reasonable doubt, then the Crown case was, not proved. His Honour requested the jury not to approach the case in any spirit of pro judi'ce or repugnance, but to consider the case purely upon this evidence given. The jury was not to take any notice ofc what the Coroner might say, or what they had heard or seen in the newspapers. It had to be first clear to the jury that accused had been involved in an accident where injuries had occurred to the deceased. He traversed the evidence at length, and stated the condition of the car which accused in his statement admitted driving was consistent with being involved in a severe collision of the nature claimed by the .Crown. Negligence, said hi'si Honour, was a failure to do what was a matter of commonsense. The two charges, said his Honour, were entirely independent of each other. He proceeded to direct the jury to portions of the evidence which were the most important. The evidence relating to the goggles, he said, was of! extreme importance, serving the same purpose as the fingerprints of a burglar. If this evidence was believed by the jury, it was of extreme importance and was overwhelming. In respect to accused’s counsel’s observations in this direction, his Honour staid that it was a grave danger for judges or juries to set themselves up in the position of experts, and pointed; out that accused and his counsel had had ample opportunity since last October of obtaining other expert advice relative to the possibility or otherwise of fitting into position the fractured particles, as" carried out by the expert witness called fo r the prosecution. This was not done, nor was the expert witness cross-examin-ed at any length on the subject. The jury, hits Honour flaid, was bound to accept the evidence as ne gave it in view of no evidence of opposition or lontradicti'on. Regarding the red plailnt on the motor-cycle, and that

grazed off the car wheel, the defence bad raised a point, but made no effort to furnish evidence to show that the two paints were dissimilar. If the jury accepted the evidence that the car was in a collision, and that evidence seemed compelling, the jury must then satisfy themselves that. accused negligently drove the vehicle. With, reference to counsel’s complaint that accused’s companions were not called as witnesses by the Crown, h s Honour said that the Crown should tendter nil witnesses who might be able to. throw any light on the matter, but all the responsibility did not rest entirely with the Crown in this case, but also with the defence. The evidence was mainly circumstantial, but indeed such evidence might ne more cogent and compelling than direct evidence, and those constantly connected with courts knew this to be (so. Circumstantial evidence was only unsatisfactory when a link in the chain w T as missing. The onus, his Honour said, was upon the Crown to prove its case, and he would warn the jury again not to bring in any verdict because of horror or repugnance that they might have of the type of offence with which accused w-as indicted. He pointed out that, on the other hand, were juries to acquit people who were palpably guilty, they weakened the authority of 1 law to. disci-, pline' motorists—some motorists relaxed care—-thereby increasing the number of cases, but if they were found guilty it enforced the care. If a man went about with a shotgun in a negligent way, popular opinion strongly disapproved of such action. There was no sympathy for such a person, and until they obtained the same effect In the case of motorists- who stupidly went about the country,.-the authority of the law to discipline motorists was weakened. However, that was. not the basis on which the jury should decide the issue. It was on the evidence placed before them. He pointed out that the Grown must show that accused ran away, knowing that he had been involved in an accident. Mr Thomas asked his Honour . to note that he had requested peimission

for the jury to inspect the fractured goggle. His Honour intimated that the jury could if they so desired inspect the goggle, but they should in no way hold themselves up as experts in considering this aspect of the case The jury retired at 6.35 p.m., and after an hour for dinner, considered' their verdict, returning at 10-5 p.m. ■ with a verdict of not guilty on bothWl counts. Accused was then discharged at the direction of his Honour.