GRAVE VERDICT

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 30 March 1925, Page 5

GRAVE VERDICT

MOUNTAIN ROAD FATALITY.

MOTORIST NAMED.

THE CORONER OUTSPOKEN,

Outspoken comment by the District. Coroner, Mr A. M. Mowlem, S.M., characterised the inquest, concluded at Stratford on Saturday, touching the death of Thomas Brazier Brattle, better known as Thomas Hendrick, who was found in a dying condition lying on the Mountain road, Stratford, on the evening of March 18.

John Martin, farmer, of Pembroke Road, aga.nst whom a charge of manslaughter has been, laid in connection with the matter, was present at the .nquest.

John Kane, labourer, of Awakiiio (as reported, by the Post), said he knew John Thomas Martin, and was in his company on March 18. He first met him on' that day near the Stratford where they had two beers. That would he about 11.45 a.m. They left Stratford by motor-car shortly afterwards. Another man was with them, but witness did not know his name. Martin was driving, and they went to Inglewood. They called in at the Tariki Hotel, where they had a couple of beers. On arrival at Inglewood they went to a hotel, where another couple of drinks of beer were partaken of, and a visit was then paid to the Railway Hotel, where another couple of beers were again consumed. They went back to the first hotel, where they had some more liquor. He le-it th.g party at the luelewood Hotel, and did not go back to the Railway Hotel. He was doubtful whether Martin went back to the Railway Hotel. Mr Mowlem: “Yes, I expect you would he a bit doubtful by that time.”

Martin later picked him up on the Reserve, where witness was talking to ,a man. The third man left them shortly after they arrived at Inglewood When Martin again picked him up [they returned towards Stratford, leaving about 5 p.m., the car being driven by Martin. They called in at the Tariki Hotel once more, and again had the usual two drinks of beer. They took two bottles of beer with them. Another man joined them at Tariki and put his bicycle in the car. Witness thought v that man left them at Midhirst They had no drink at the Midhirst Hotel. Near the Pembroke Road corner they hit some obstacle. The obstacle appeared to be a motor-cycle rather than a push-bicycle. He was sitting on the left-hand side of the driver.

Witness then became confused, and did not appear to. know who Was iii the ear. ' “WE HIT SOMETHING.” After tiie collision, lie said, Martin drove lip Pembroke Road, which was on his way home. Martin did not pull up /the car at once, but did shortly after striking the object. Witness had said, “I think we hit something.” He could not exactly remember what Martin’s reply was. Witness did not know what they hit, and he thought Martin was doubtful also. When the car v/as pulled up witness walked along the road a good distance. He met a young man, and when the later was asked by witness what was wrong, he replied that a hospital case had gene to the hospital. Witness then went back to the car, alongside oi which Martin was standing. Martin did not go back. He remained to look after the car, at witness’ request. He told Martin what the man had said, hut did not exactly remember what the ' reply was, but thought Martin said something about hot knowing anything about it. Martin then spoke of some damage done to one of the wheels. They then came into town after some preparations had been made regarding the wheel. They picked up another young man who got into the car. , They passed over the bridge on Broadway, and went on for some distance. They went along the main road to “get back on to the tracks they had come through.’’ On I the way back they hit a structure on j the left-hand side of the bridge, and ■ carried away part of the structure.. The ear was then taken to Newton King’s | garage. He could not say for sure i whether Martin was driving all the I time. He thought it would be about I 7 p.m. when they struck the obstacle', near Pembroke Road. Witness thought it would be about that time. They had some work at Newton King’s, and then drove to Martin’s home, where the car j was placed in the garage. They then j had tea, and a “bit of conversation,” ! after which they went to bed. The next thing he remembered was the po- ( lice visit at midnight. The beer taken j from Tariki he had not- seen again, j and he was ignorant as to its fate, j When the collision occurred Martin was “not so bad,” though probably “not in the best of trim.”

“A BIT SQUIFFY.” Witness coukl not guarantee that'Martin knew what he was rdoing, as witness was a bit “squiffy.” J. E. L. Jenkins, Borough Inspector, depised that on March 18 he went to the scene oi the accident with Sergeant Reid and Constable Gill. On going past Pembroke Road, he noticed a pool of blood and marks which he traced to about 70 yards from the corner. There was a dent in the road, and the distance from the centre of the dent to the edge of the tar would be 30 inches, A lamp was lying 15 teet away and a .:up at a distance of 30 feet: Front the dent there .was a drag mark for a distance of 84 feet to a pool of blood. There was a .second dent in the- rortd 30 feet south -of the first one. Witness gave lengthy evidence -recaidmg distances. Later he said he proceeded to the residence of Martin in c<unpany with' the ponce, and ....upon examining the car saw a , splash of blood on one of the spoices of the righthand front wheel. Under the mudguard there was a piece of flesh, b-> which he drew the Sergeant’s attention. The flesh was removed and handed to on stable Gill on a sheet of -paper . Under the car witness noticed splashes of blood, and on some . of the bolts holding the brake rods in position there were pieecs of skin and hair. They then went to the house, and after knocking the door, was opened by Martin, who was questioned as to jhis movements by the sergeant. He made statements, some of which were sometimes intelligible and sometimes not. Martin anpeared to be suffering ironr the effects of liquor. Thev/first went to the garage about midnight. Other evidence showed that a number of oeople had seen a car driven in a zig-zag manner near the place where and at the time when the accident happened, and witnesses identified Martin as the driver of the car. Others also saw him later near the Stratford Bridge l where he collided with a barricade then on the roadway. Medical evidence showed that Brattle received a number of severe in-

juries and tliat the body had been dragged along the roadway. THE CORONER’S COMMENTS. In giving his decision, Mr. Mowlem said that this was one: of the saddest cases with which he had had to deal. The three things to be ascertained were the time, place and cause of death of the young man in question. He did not propose to say a great deal; because it, Was plain other proceedings must follow. A man was now iu custody on a charge of manslaughter, and it was not his (the coroner’s) intention to prejudice him in his trial, but there were some things that the evidence compelled him to say. It was plain that deceased had been done to death through absolute negligence and utter stupidity. He wa s swept off the road by a motorist 'in a most callous and heartrending way. The only, possible excuse was not really an excuse, and that was that the driver of the ear was drunk, having thus added to his: stupidity. Mr. Mowlem said he had previously sent to prison the man in custody for being drunk in. charge of a car. The verdict was as follows : “Thomas Brazier Brattle, usually called or known as Thomas Hendrick, died on the way from Pembroke Road to, the . Hospital," at S.ratford, on March 18, from injuries received bv him, particularly to. his head, the cause of his death being concussion of the brain due to injuries - lie had received. The evidence shows that the motor’: car which came into collision with deceased ‘ was driven negligently, and with utter and wanton lack of ordinary and reasonable prudence and diligence. It was the failure to exercise such ordinary and reasonable . prudence and diligence which caused the driver of the motor car to run over the deceased as he was riding his bicycle home, and it was such failure which occasioned his death. The whole of the evidence shows that the driver of the car was John Thomas Martin. In my opinion, John Thomas Martin is guilty of manslaughter •under the Crimes Act.” '•