Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MOTORIST CONVICTED

Karoro Collision LACK OF DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. As a sequel to a collision at Karoro on the Greymouth-Hokitika highway, on December 4, 1941, when two cars left the road and went over the bank, Frederick Lovell Turley, Secretary to the West Coast Timber Workers' Union appeared before Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday to answer a charge of driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention.

Defendant who was not represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty. Senior Sergeant G. F. Bonisch conducted proceedings for the police. Grace Evelyn Taylor, a inarned woman, residing at Inangahua Junction, said that on December 4 she was visiting Greymouth. She came to Greymouth in her 10 h.p. Ford ’ car, at about 10.45 p.m.. She drove to Karoro, intending to visit friends. She parked her car with two of the wheels on the grass and two just on the edge of the bitumen. The car was facing Greymouth and on the west side of the road. The hand brake was on, and every door except one was locked. The lights were left on, on dim. The car .was m good condition and all lights were functioning properly. The tail-light was on. She had left the car only ten minutes when she heard a crash. It was suggested that a neighbours car had crashed into a glass house. She ran to where hei' car was parked and found her car down the Dank, and facing Hokitika, and almost on the railway line. There was another car over the bank, facing Greymouth, and on an angle towards the railway line. It was about two yards off the road, and slightly past witness’ car. She saw a man come away from the other car and cross the road. He spoke to another man, and he then came back and asked whose car it was. She recognised him as Mr Turley. She asked him how the car got over the bank, but he did not answer, asking her if it was her car. She said it was, and asked how he had run into her car. He said: “You are very unlucky lady.” Defendant then said .she had not left a light on. When defendant came over to her she smelt drink on him, and she accused him of it. He said: “You can’t smell drink. I never drink.” She could tell he was not drunk, and there was nothing to suggest he had too much liouor. Defendant then went, to his car and turned on the; light over the dashboard. He then picked up a rug, and putting three bottles in it, carried it off up the bank where he walked off to Greymouth, After being away for a quarter of an hour, defendant returned in another car with another man. Her friend, Mrs Dunn, then joined her on the road. A policeman next arrived on the scene in answer to her call. Mrs Dunn said: “That’s a nice thing you’ve done to-night, Mr Turley!” Defendant said: “Yes, it’s the best trick I have done for twenty-live years. I’ve never done that before.” That gave her the impression that he had done it deliberately, and she thought that no sane man could have done it, as there might have been someone in the car. The car was extensively damaged and had not yet been properly repaired. It was a bright moonlight night, and one could see for half a mile. Even if her lights had not been on, defendant could have seen her car. To Mr Turley: She went no further south, than McGrath’s place, where she turned her car. She had parked her car where she had, so that it could be observed if anyone tried to take her petrol. The Magistrate: If Mrs Taylor was looking for a place to park her car right off the road, she could have found plenty, but I am only concerned wdth the place she had parked the car. Witness continuing, under crossexamination, said that there was no one else in her car when she parked it. The right-hand wheels were no more than a foot under the bitumen. She had no idea how far it was from the bitumen to the blackberries. There could be no reason for the lights going out, as the car was a new one. The battery was thrown out, and was certainly not taken out of the car immediately after the accident. She was told that the battery had been taken care of, being picked up. She could not get near her car. The battery was a new one. If it was taken out, it was without her knowledge. She- did not drink, but she could take a glass of beer. She thought she smelt beer on defendant. It was not whisky, and could not be lime juice. She definitely saw defendant take bottles out of the car, but could not see what was in them —“it may have been tea!” She did not notice so much what he took out of the car the second time. She had told the policeman that she had smelt drink on defendant. There was no car on the road either moving or parked when she left her car parked. However, after the accident there was a car parked on the opposite side of the road about 30 yards down the road.

To Senior Sergeant Bonisch: As far as she knew, there were no particular places for parking motorcars.

Constable Owen L. Thomas, of Greymouth, said he arrived on the scene of the accident at about 11 p.m. ’Two cars were over the bank and he asked for the drivers. He took particulars from Mrs Taylor, who told him that Mr Turley drove the other car. He made an inspection of both cars and took a full bottle of beer from Mr Turley’s car. Mrs Taylor’s car was lying on its right side, and was extensively damaged. Defendant’s car was also over the bank. He had taken measurements of marks on the road, and had made a plan of the locality. On that road there was 18 feet of bitumen and on the west side there was a margin of two feet to the grass, and then two feet of grass before the depression began. Marks showed that Mrs Taylor's car had been parked on the grass. While parked in that position Mrs Taylor’s car would only occupy a foot of bitumen. That left 17 feet of bitumen for other cars, be. sides another six feet to the gutter. The weather was fine and there was bright moonlight. The car should have been visible for a considerable distance. He could see no reason at all why the car should have been collided with and there could be no reason for anyone not seeing the car.

To defendant: There was a car parked on the east side of the road about two chains from Mrs Taylor’s car when he arrived on the scene. He took a bottle of beer out of the car and later replaced it. He did not know what brand it was. Nothing else was taken out of the car. The Magistrate: Have you missed anything, Mr Turley Defendant: Yes.

Continuing, witness said he was investigating the cause of the accident and was not concerned with the beer. The bottle was tucked away in .one corner. When he asked defendant if he had liuoqr, defendant said he had had some liquor at Ruatapu about seven o’clock. Defend-

ant was smoking a cigar, and said he nod always smoked them. Mrs Tayicr alleged that defendant had had dunk, but witness could not smell it, as he was smoking a cigar at the time. He did not remember defendant saying it was witness’s obligation to take him to the police station. He found out later that defendant was in the habit of smoking cigars. „ , 'Che Magistrate: Mr Turley, you are not being charged with being intoxicated and there is no need to labour the point. It is proper, however that all facts be brought before the Court. You are wasting <ja lot of time. The constable has not gone back on anything he has said. Constable George S. Murray, of Gveymouth, said that on December J 3 he had interviewed defendant, and asked for an explanation, but defendant said he had put the matter in the hands of a solicitor and had no explanation to make. DEFENDANT’S CASE. Defendant made a statement on similar lines to his evidence, and referred to several, authorities concerning similar cases in Australia, England and New Zealand. He alleged that lack of due care was shown by the owner of the parked car, but that there was no lack of care by himself. Defendant, in evidence, said that on the night in question he was travelling northwards. He saw oncoming traffic in the centre of the road, travelling at 40 miles an hour. He slowed down to 25 or .30 miles an hour, and pulled well over to the left so as to allow the traffic to pass. There was a car parked on the other side of the road with its lights on dim, and the oncoming car had to pass it. Witness pulled over to allow room for the three cars. Normally the cars would have passed salfely. When he pulled over, he was in line with a car which he. saw parked on his left. It looked as if the cars would all meet together. He braked his car, and to avoid the oncoming traffic he had to hit the parked car, which he could see was empty. He hit the car at 15 to 20 miles an hour, his left front wheel hitting the rear chassis line. He immediately turned to the left to get both cars off the road. He was successful in that, the small car being light. The car only had to go about two feet six inches from the bitumen to be off the road and into the blackberries. His .own car went on a few feet and went over the bank. Had he hit the car in the rear it would have been knocked into the oncoming traffic. The Magistrate: You are taking the credit for engineering the whole thing, for saving the oncoming traffic ? Defendant: “Yes.”

Continuing, defendant said the man in the passing car camo back and would give evidence. He had asked Mr Ellery, the owner of the other parked car to look after defendant’s car. He then went down town and obtained the services of a breakdown van. He drove back to the scene and asked Mr Ellery if everything was all right, and Ellery said it was, no one having touched tne car. He then saw the policeman, who said Mrs Tayloi’ had alleged he was drunk. It was one thing he did not do. He would not drink three bottles of beer in six months, but he did drink gallons of lime juice. He suggested that the constable take him to the police station but the constable said: “You are smoking a cigar. It may be camouflage.’'" He had travelled to Dunedin recently with a friend, a Mr Forrest, of Runanga, who left a bottle of Speight’s beer near the back window. IL had been there for months without his knowledge and came over to the front of the car during the accident. When he came back, somebody else took the bottle out of the front seat. It was a moonlight night, but rain had fallen and there were dark clouds in the sky, which would give the constable the impression that it was particularly bright. It was an impossibility for any person to see Mrs Taylor's small black car under the shadow of the blackberries until one was right on to it. He was travelling with his lights dimmed, owing to being in the blackout area. He had not been involved in more than two car smashes in his 25 years’ experience. To the Senior Sergeant: His lights were on the dip. His car was in perfect condition. He always travelled on the dip. He was travelling at about 40 miles an hour. He thought that it was a safe way to travel. It was definitely untrue that any insurance company had refused to cover his car. It was true that ire had tipped over his car at Ru~ iianga some time ago as a result of his bad driving. It was wrong to state that he had beer at Ruatapu. He had limejuice and soda, which lie considered was not liuqor. He had not passed a jocular remark to Mrs Taylor after the accident. It. Was definitely untrue that he admitted that Mrs Taylor’s car was parked correctly. It was an impossibility to avoid an accident under the circumstances that night. Mrs Taylor’s evidence as to his taking three hotties out of the car, was a case of mistaken identity for he carried nothing home. He took nothing out. of the car. Mrs Taylor’s statement was definitely untrue. Archibald Clark of Kumara, in evidence, said he was returning from Greymouth on the night of the accident. Just as he came outside the Borough, there was a car parked on his left. Its lights were on. There was another car approaching on his left side and pulled out to pass the parked car and saw a parked car on his right side. There were no lights on that car. He pulled back to the left, as he passed the car on his left and saw that there would be a crash. He heard a crash as he passed and something hit his car. He was travelling at 30 miles an hour. He. had not noticed- the car on his right until he pulled out to pass the car on his left.

To the Senior Sergeant: He had not worked for six months. He formerly .worked in the mine. He was a,.member of the Sawmillers’ Union some years ago. He was acquainted with Mr Turley. He estimated that there was from 40 to 50 feet between the two parked cars. The first time Mr Turley approached him about the accident, and the case arising from it, was Sunday. To the Magistrate: He did not converse with Mrs Taylor that evening. The hub cap of defendant’s car hit his back mudguard just as the accident occurred.

Hugh William (Brown, garage proprietor, of Greymouth, said he had been called to remove the vehicles involved in the accident on December 4. He gave details as to the position in which the cars weie found. He found a bottle of beer in the front seat of defendant’s car and took it to his car.

To the Senior Sergea.it: The impact could have lifted the smaller car straight up into the air and the brakes could have had no effect. Defendant said it appeared, from the evidence, that the lights of the small car were not on, and it was parked in a place where it was dangerous to the public. The onus was just as much on the part of the parked car. The Magistrate: I am not hearing a claim for damages where negligence is alleged. Defendant submitted that extra-

ordinary care was shown by him in avoiding a more disastrous accident.

MAGISTRATE'S COMMENT.

The Magistrate: There were apparently two cars parked on tne road, although Mrs Taylor said there were not when she left her car. Clark said there was a distance of 40 to 50 feet between- the cars, whereas the constable estimated the distance at two chains. The question resolves itself into one of distances, really. Evidence stated that the small car was parked with two wheels on the bitumen and two off it. Not more than a foot would be oh the road. In regard to the evidence on the other car, Clark just said that the car was as far as it could get to the side of the road. However, when questioned, he said that the car was not off the bitumen. I am going to assume that both cars were ovei 1 as far as Mrs Taylor’s car was. I will give them two feet on each side of the road, but that leaves 16 feet of clear road. The cars must have been at least 40 feet apart, and even had they been parked opposite each other, there would be sixteen feet clear road and there was no reason why two cars should not pass between them. It is a question of whether defendant saw tne car in front of him. If he did, he should have had no difficulty in passing it. The cause of the accident was that defendant did not see the small car. There is contradictory evidence as to whether the lights of the small car were burning or not. Defendant and Clark said there were no lights burning. It cannot be suggested that anyone interfered with the car during Mrs Taylor’s absence, and the car was in good order. There is directly contradictory evidence there. I have heard the evidence, and accept that it was a bright moonlight night, and it should not have required a tail light on the car to show where it was parked. I think defendant has shown carelessness in that respect. Whether it was excessive speed or not, I do not know. The evidence showed that an object a quarter of a mile away could be seen, so I cannot see how defendant could not see the car. If he had been travelling round a corner, it would have been a different proposition, but it is a straight road. For that reason, I think carelessness has been proved and defendant must be convicted.

The Senior Sergeant said there were 30s witness’s expenses. Defendant asked for a sufficient penalty to allow him to appeal. The Magistrate: Are there any previous convictions.

The Senior Sergeant: There were two previous convictions, one on a. similar charge to this one. In .that, case he asked for an increased fine to appeal, but he did not go through with it.

Defendant: I object to that. The Magistrate: I am only considering the question of a penalty— Defendant: I want to reply to that. I—

The Magistrate. Take your seat Mr Turley. You will be convicted and fined £7, with witness’s expenses £2 Is lid and costs 12s.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GRA19420317.2.59

Bibliographic details

Grey River Argus, 17 March 1942, Page 8

Word Count
3,089

MOTORIST CONVICTED Grey River Argus, 17 March 1942, Page 8

MOTORIST CONVICTED Grey River Argus, 17 March 1942, Page 8