EXCESSIVE SPEED

Grey River Argus, 18 March 1941, Page 7

EXCESSIVE SPEED

MOTORIST FINED A Chase Near Paroa Frederick Lovell Turley pleaded not guilty yesterday at the Greymouth Magistrate’s Court to a charge that on November 2, 1940, he being the driver of a motor vehicle along the Main South Road, did drive at a speed which, having regard to the circumstances of the case. might have been dangerous to the public. The case was tried before Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M. The charge was laid by Traffic Inspector D. D. Burdett, who, in evidence, said that, at eleven o'clock on the evening of November 2, 1940, he was in his car near the Paroa Hotel, when a car approached coming from Hokitika. The car bounced over the bridge near Paroa and passed witness at a speed which he estimated at forty miles an hour. He then, went after the car, but was unable to catch it until he had reached the overhead bridge, a distance of one and a-half miles. On the way,, defendant had passed four cars and had overtaken one. The road was not a good one for speeding. He put on his siren, when his car was close to that of the defendant’s, who then speeded his car up to 65 miles an hour before stopping. On being questioned, defendant said that he had been in a hurry, and had speeded because witness’s lights were dazzling him and he had endeavoured to get away from them. He admitted hearing the siren, but said he did not stop because he did not think that it was meant for

him. There was a large ’bus and a number of cars parked at Paroa where a dance was in progress. On the defendant's request, the proceedings had been held over until after defendant’s appeal had been heard. To defendant, defendant was not travelling at less than forty miles an hour at any time and he had estimated the speed of the car over the bridge by the w'ay it had bounced and by the way it had gone past him. Defendant had admitted hearing the siren before stopping. Defendant said that the charge read “driving at Paroa’’ so that what he did outside Paroa did not come into the present case. In evidence, defendant said that on the night in question he was driving along and approached Paroa from the south When on the south side of the Paroa bridge, he noticed a considerable amount of cars parked outside the* hotel. There was so much light about that he thought that there had been an accident and he slowed down his car, before going on to the bridge, crossing it at under 25 miles an hour. He did not increase his speed until he had passed the school, thus having passed the parked motor-cars. On the night in question the weather was good and the roads were good. To the Traffic Inspector: There was a great deal of light from the cars parked at Paroa. The 'bus had • its lights on, and was parked outside the hotel on the same side of lhe road, as he was on, and facing south. He thought that the hotel had been built by then. He would say that the Inspector was not telling the truth if he said that the 'bus was on its correct side of the road, and was. parked outside the school facing Greymouth. There were about twelve ( cars parked, and there was a numbe r of pedestrians on the footpath. He had been able to tell his speed by I his speedometer. He had been over) the Paroa bridge many times. Any car would bounce over the bridge. The Inspector: Modern cars do not bounce under 30 miles an hour. Defendant: Mine bounced because 1 it was not loaded. He would say that j the Inspector had estimated his speed wrongly. In regard to the other one and a-half miles over that distance, he had not passed another car. He had travelled at a speed of forty to fifty miles an hour, after passing Paroa. He saw that a car with bright headlights was following him, after he had crossed the South Beach overhead bridge, and was approaching the Stratford and Blair’s tramline. He pulled his car well off the road to allow the car to pass. He was then going at forty-five miles i an hour. The following car made n 0 attempt to pass him, but got in behind him and gave him the full glare of his headlights. Up to then defendant had heard no siren. He then speeded up to get away from the headlights’ glare. His car was then travelling at fifty-two miles an hour, the fastest speed he had attained on that particular night. He saw a big ’bus approaching about 400 yards ahead and had slowed down ‘ to forty miles an hour when he’ heard the siren. He instantly pulled up and found that the Inspector’s car was only three feet behind him. The Inspector got out of his car and asked him if he was in a hurry. He replied that he was not. The inspector then asked him why he had travelled so fast and he said, “this is the limit!” You give me your headlight, glare and then get out and say tuat I was travelling fast. To the Inspector: It would be a very foolish man who tried to drive away from the Inspector’s car. He had not heard the siren, and until he stopped the car he passed no other car. It would be definitely untrue to state that he had met four cars and overtook one. When he drove a car he always kept his eye on the speedometer. He did not overtake a small van. Any careful driver could drive with three cars abreast on the Paroa Road.

The Magistrate: Can I take that as an estimate of you? driving ? Defendant said that it was perfectly safe driving at fifty miles an hour. That night he had made more than usual provision for right-hand traffic. He had not had an accident in his twenty years’ driving. To the Inspector: He haa' skidded once on the road at Blackball. He did not remember skidding at Hokitika. The Magistrate; You say you slowed down at Paroa, yet the Inspector saw fit to follow your car. What should cause him to follow you. Defendant: If the Inspector set out to catch me he would have done so before I reached the South Beach bridge. The Inspector was telling a deliberate untruth when he stated that I was going at forty miles an hour at Paroa. I deliberately slowed down before going into the town. Hugh William Brown, an A.l;' motor mechanic, said that he did deferid-

ant’s car repairs and car was kept in perfect condign. The Magistrate: 65 miles an hour would not be any trouble to anyone driving that car ? Witness: No Sir. Fie had known defendant for a number of years and as far as he knew he had always been a careful driver. Defendant submitted that the charge sheet charged him with dan-i gerous driving, while he was being] charged with driving at a speed which might have been dangerous to’ the public. He had been taken by surprise when he had been charged with that. I The Magistrate: I cannot see howl you could be taken by surprise. | Defendant referred the Court to Page 27 of the Traffic Laws of New Zealand and quoted an authority, m ( which a charge against a motorist had been dismissed by the Magistrate ( and in the Court of Appeal. He submitted that this was only the second time on which he had been chprgeu with an offence and there was something very strange about it. On October 26, Mr Sloss— The Magistrate: I am not going to allow you to refer to that case. Defendant said that on October 26 he had been charged with allegedly breaking a bye-law and eight days later, on November 2, he had been caught again. He was caught by an Inspector on October 26, and a week o r so later he was caught by another one. He wrote to the Traffic Department and stated that it seemed strange that he received no reply from them until after the first case had been heard in the lower Court. The Magistrate: There must be a limit to this sort of thing. Are you suggesting that the Inspector deliberately set out. to catch you Defendant: It certainly looks like that on the facts. The Magistrate: I. cannot have anymore of it. Stick to the facts. Inspector Burdett suggested that the letters referred to be produced. The Magistrate said that he would like to see them. Defendant said that he could get them. He submitted that the Court could hardly hold that he was driving dangerously. “In a car of this kind forty to fifty miles an hour is a normal speed.” he said. It was the Inspector’s evidence and wor'/ against his. He submitted that by English 'justice he was not guilty until proved guilty. The Magistrate said that he would have to choose between the evidence of the Inspector and of the defendant. If the evidence of the Inspector were correct, there was no question but that the defendant had been driving in a manner dangerous to the public The Inspector had estimated the speed at the bridge at forty-five miles an hour, and following defendant’s car had stated that the speed was sixty-five miles an hour, before he could overtake him. Defendant had said that his speed was twenty-five miles an hour through Paroa. He was not satisfied that defendant was going at that speed. He would accept the evidence of the Inspector that defendant was travelling at 65 miles an hour and that he passed several cars, and that he was driving at a speed dangerous to the public. Defendant would be convicted and fined £1 and costs. Defendant: Can I have the fine over £5, s 0 I can have the right to appeal ? The Magistrate: All right. Yon will be convicted and fined £5 Is with 10s costs. I have also altered the charge to read “between Paroa and South Beach.” It will now conform with your initial notice and the evidence.” The Magistrate refused to return defendant his original notes, which l e said had better stay on the file. “You alleged that you were taken by surprise by the wording of thv charge and this shows that you were not,” remarked His Worship to defendant.