ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 16 May 1928, Page 11

ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER

DEATH OF MRS RITCHER MOTORIST ON TRIAL. CASE FOR DEFENCE OPENED. 'BY TELEGRAPH—SPECIAL TO “THE STAR.”) NEW PLYAIOUTH, Alay 16. On the Supreme Court resuming this morning in the trial of George Cravy Smith for manslaughter arising out of the death of Airs. Richter at Mokoia, Mr. O’Dea opened the case for the defence.

He said that the accused would give a fair statement of his movements ■on the day of the accident. He was returning from a wool sale at Wanganui, and had Air. Patterson with: him as far as Patea. Air. Patterson would say that they had no drink at Wanganui. At Waver ley, Mr. E. Nixon was picked up and brought on to Havvera, Indepenednt evidence would lie given by two other men as to what took place at Patea, and there would be similar testimony as to what took place at Kakaramea. Counsel then referred "to the occurrences at Mokoia and to the evidence of Air. Alain as to the speed at- which Smith’s ear passed his store. He said that in the light of Air. Locker’s evidence he intended to ask the jury to disregard entirely Mr. Alain’s evidence on that point. *" Then Air. O’Dea referred to the character of the road over which they had driven, and suggested that no drunken man could have negotiated the devil’s elbow on that road. It had been raining, and Smith, bad been using the screen wiper, and while driving along the road near Alokoia the woman suddenly loomed' in front of him and, he did not see her before. She was only three or four yards away when be first saw her. She was travelling near the centre of the roadway.

Counsel then said, he thought the jury could accept- the evidence of Dr. Young that the body had. not been dragged. After hitting the woman the car was just allowed to run to the other side of the road, and was brought to a stop Nixon jumped out quickly, and when the, car stopped Smith followed “That did not look as if they were drunk,” said counsel. Dealing with the failure of the- two men to remain and lend assistance, Air. O’Dea said that that was . undoubtedly wrong of them. What they should have done was to put- the woman in their ear and run her quickly to a doctor. Counsel emphasised the point, however, that it did not matter what happened after the accident ; it was what took place before that was of importance. When Smith answered the questions put to him by Sergean Henry, in -spite of the- sergeant’s statement that Smith was drunk, he took a, statement from him, but counsel suggested that SergeantHenry was too good an officer to take a statement from a drunken man.. Mr. O’Dea attributed Smith’s conduct after the accident to the effects of the -shock and to “funk,” and again- stressed the point that the after events were not the important points in the case.

EVIDENCE FOR- THE DEFENCE. Evidence was then given by William Patterson-, fanner of Patea, who who travelled to Wanganui and back with Smith. On this occasion: they had no drink in Wanganui or at Waverley. Air. Nixon joined them at Waverley. Smith had a whisky at Patea, but when he drove away there was nothing about his driving to attract the attention of anyone. He had refused drink both at Wanganui and at Waverley.

R. G. Seown, of Hurleyville-, said that he met Smith at Patea and hadone drink with -him. He had a lemon sq-uasli. In reply to All*. Weston, the witness- said that he had known- Smith for over 10 years, an.d had never seen him, under the influence, of liquor. Alfred Pearce, of Kakaramea, deposed to meeting Smith at the Kakaramea Hotel, where he had a whisky and a pony -shandy.

Other evidence was given by Walter Kerrisk and Russell Douglas, the latter stating that he passed Smith on the- south side of Mokoia on the day of the accident, and saw nothing in his manner of driving to attract .attention.

In replv to Mr. Weston, witness admitted having told' the police that he knew nothing about the accident. He remembered the incident because of what he saw in the paper the following day. ACCUSED IN THE WITNESS BOX. The 1 accused, who said he was a stock agent, said that, he had been in that class of business for over 20 years. He had been with, his last employers for a little over two years. He was 5-1 years of age. He had had rheumatic fever four times, and his eyes had been affected. He took three other men to Wanganui for the wool sale on February 23. He took only soft drinks (squash and soda) oni that day. On returning on the following day lie stopped at the Waverley sale, and Mr. Nixon asked him for a ride back to Hawera. Mr. Patterson came back as far as Patea with witness. At Patea witness had two drinks, and at Kakaramea be had a whisky and pony shandy. He lmd nob seen Mr. Douglas on the other side of Mokoia, and only found out on Saturday that it was Mr. Douglas who. passed him. On the question of speed, witness said that he doubted if lie could get. 35 miles out of his car, and he could certainly not take the corner at Mokoia at that speed. The visibility between Waverley and Hawera was bad. The first he saw of the woman was a yard or two in front of him. He was travelling fairly slowly, and thought be gave her a push more than a striking blow. The' woman was walking near the centre on the left side of the road. Nixon jumped out before the car stopped, and witness ran his car to the other side of the road and pulled up. As witness was coming towards the body the other car arrived. Meuli said that he was ringing up for the police. Witness could not- say why he did it, hut he went back to his car. He saw Campbell there, hut the latter never came within half a chain of witness. He returned to Hawera, taking Nixon home first. He had been wet through, and had a hot brandy when he reached home. Witness denied that he had to support himself by holding on to a verandah post when the police' came to see him. The police had him hustled, and as he had not said anything to his wife about the accident he did not want her to hear what was o-oing on. He remembered the interview" at the police station, with Dr. Sinclair. He told him something about the accident, and would have told him everything if lie had been asked. He did not know the lamp of his car was Trrolcen. To his Honour: He first put lus lights on when going from. Nixon’s

place to his own; he did not need them before.

Cross-examined by Air. Weston, the accused said he was drinking soft stuff at Wanganui, partly on account of not feeling well, and also because a Jot ol his business was done in hotels and he was trying to avoid too much drink. He could not say exactly why he stopped at Kakaramea, but it was not for the purpose of having a drink. He ivas wet through and cold and felt miserable. The liquor he had had did not affect him before the accident, but after that probably both the shock and the liquor affected him. If there had been no accident lie dirt not think he would have been affected in any way. He thought his speed at the time of the accident would not be more than 20 miles an hour. If he had been going faster he would have gone right over the deceased. He knew he had struck the woman, and it was not Air. Nixon who first informed him of what had happened. He did not think he had hit her Jhard enough to hurt her, and it was not till the next morning he knew she was seriously hurt. He did not notice a pool of blood at the time. He had no- recollection of anyone speaking to him at the time of the accident, except Mteuli saying lie was ringing up for the police. Accused said he was transacting business over the telephone at the time the police came. He could not say why he gave no assistance at the time of the accident, and said drink had nothing to do with his conduct. He knew he was in “any sort of a mood” when Dr. Sinclair interviewed him, and that ho was being tested as to his sobriety. The drink he liad when lie got homo might have affected him, but he was certainly sober. He could not say much about Nixon’s conduct. His Honour: AYliat was your idea of Nixon’s condition? "Witness: I don’t- know; lie seemed all right. Was he sober? He had had more drink than I had. Would you say he was a man who had had as much liquor as was good lor him? Yes. All*. Western asked how the accused could account lor such a. combination of people coming to court and saying he was drunk, and witness said they were strangers to him and he did not know why they should say so, apart from the drink business. “Can you give any explanation foi-l-mocking a woman down in broad daylight?” asked the Crown prosecutor, and accused replied that he could not, except for the effect of the lightthrough the windscreen. COUNSEL ADDRESS JURY. This concluded the evidence, and counsel’s addresses followed. In summing up his Honour pointed out that all such cases were of extreme importance, because upon the decision of juries in these cases was based the standard of care which was expected of people who drove motor-cans on the highways. If juries by their verdict show that they are going to insist on the careful use of motor-cars, then people would know the standard and that they must abide -by it. In this case they must take the facts as they found them, and then satisfy themselves as to whether or not it was a case of negligence. If they found the car was driven in a negligent marwier, they should not allow any feelings of sympathy for the accused to- interfere with their verdict. His Honour then dealt with the counts in the indictment and explained the law as to negligence and on the question of intoxication. He then analysed the evidence, and finally said that' the onus was on the Crown of proving the charges, and if there was any reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury the- prisoner was entitled to the benefit of that doubt. The jury retired at six minutes past one o’clock.