MOTOR LICENSE SUSPENDED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 24 March 1928, Page 9

MOTOR LICENSE SUSPENDED.

CAR AND HORSE COLLIDE.

MAGISTRATE’S STRONG COMMENTS.

Owing to the prevalency of motor accidents, which iiave in the majority of cases, been due to negligent driving, Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., in common with other magistrates, lias made it clear that he would in future inflict the penalty of suspension of licenses in cases where motorists were convicted that the motorist was almost deaf, upunake Court, yesterday, a young factory assistant, who was convicted of negligent driving, had his license suspended for twelve months. During the hearing of the defence it was stated that the motorists was almost deaf, and the Magistrate commented strongly on local bodies granting licenses to persons who were deaf. He also expressed surprise that the particular local body had no inspector appointed to see that motorists conformed to the regulations. The case arose from a collision on Heimama bridge, on the Main South Road near Opunake, whereby a horse ridden by R. G. McCook had a leg 'broken and had to be destroyed. A young man named Percy Stewart Mann was charged with negligently driging a motor-car. Defendant who was represented by Mr. li-. E. Baeyertz, pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by It. G. McCook to the effect that'he was riding towards Itahotu and had gone about two-thirds across the bridge when the car driven by defendant came on the bridge at a fairly fast rate and struck the horse throwing witness off. The horse had a leg broken. He thought lefendant tried to pull up, but that his brakes were defective. He understood defendant to say the brakes were .lefective.

Cross-examined, witness said defendant apparently kept as far as he could to the left and endeavoured to pull up. Indeed, he thought defendant had done all he possibly could.

DTD NOT HAVE ANY DRINK

Witness, who was being cross-exam-ined as to what he had been doing in opunake, said: “You want to know whether I was full of beer or not? Well, as it happened I was not.”

Witness said that he had had a drink, but that made no difference to the accident, it was hard to say whether the accident would have occurred ,uad the horse not half turned, but there was no possibility of the horse and the car getting across the bridge it the same time. He did not hear any .lorn. He admitted that defendant .an into the bridge to avoid striking witness.

“In fact,” added Mr. Baeyertz, “defendant risked his own life.”

Constable Shirley, who was releiving it Upunake at the time, said he visited the scene of the accident and saw a skid mark 47 yards long. In a statement to the police defendant stated chat the car was a borrowed one and that when he went to put on the brakes they appeared to be defective. Te endeavoured to avoid the accident, and in the statement said he was willing to compensate the owner of the iorse, as he realised that the rider was not to blame. The bridge could be seen Op yards away, and, driving at a reasonable speed, defendant should have been able to pull the car up in time.

In cross-examination witness said that the bridge was lift. 2in. wide and the car 4ft. lOin. wide.

Mr. Baeyertz: Does Your Worship wish to hear me ?

The Magistrate: I was wondering what possible defence there is.

Mir. Baeyertz said there was no suggestion of drink. Defendant was on his right side. Being very deaf, he did not hear the statement read. The danger signals were, set too near the lui.ige. Defendant was travelling at a moderate speed and to avoid hitting the horse full on he turned into the nidge, risking his own life. In putting defendant into the box ounsel said that he was so deaf he was unable to hear the proceedings. Constable Clouston: Then he should not have a license !

BRAKES FAILED’ TO ACT

Defendant gave evidence that he nad not exceeded 35 miles an hour on the trip irom Pungarehu. He was travelling about 25 miles an hour over the hill and sounded the -horn. As soon as he saw the horse on the bridge ne tided to pull up, but as the brakes tailed witness ran into the side of the bridge and the horse swung round and •strucit the car. Had he struck the jorse square on it would have been milled. He had made it clear to the owner that he would have to pay compensation if it were his fault. The Magistrate, in giving his decision said that from the situation disclosed it was distinctly pitiful that the man should derend the case, thinking that he was right in what he did. A deaf man should not drive a car and the county council was not justified ai issuing a license to a man who was deaf. If defendant were wise lie would not apply for a renewal of his license, as in driving a car he was In dangei to himself and to everyone else. A' man who drove a. vehicle without a proper brake was guilty of negligence, so that there was no more to be said tor the defence. Under the new regulations gazetted since the accident, Drakes had been fully dealt with. The Magistrate said that he had tried to make it plain that in cases of negligent driving he would suspeno :ho license, but he made ux> his mind not to do so till after the end of the month. 'He, however, expressed the hope that defendant would give up dri t ing a motor-car on account of his leafness. Indeed, if the council was wise it would refuse to issue a license.

The Magistrate then asked defendint if he intended to apply again for his license, but it was found that lie had not heard much of the Magistrate’s remarks. The Magistrate convicted defendant and suspended his license for twelve months. Costs were £2 6s.