INTOXICATED MOTORIST

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 9 November 1928, Page 7

INTOXICATED MOTORIST

BORDERLINE CASE REVIEWED. kapuni farmer convicted. FINE OF £25 IMPOSED. ‘•A man who has consumed' suflicient alcohol to allow an observer to see a departure from normal condition is intoxicated,” said Mr. J S. Barton, S.M., in the Haw-era Court yesterday, after reviewing a Supreme • Court decision on the question. Mr. Barton s remark was made in dealing with a charge against Bartholomew Ryan, of Kapuni, of being in charge of a motor car in Riddiford Street, Hawera, on the afternoon of October 25 while in a state of intoxication. While admitting it was a borderline case, the magistrate held the charge to be proven, and inflicted a. fine of £25 and £1 11s costs, and cancelled defendant’s current driver’s license. Defendant was represented by Mr. P. O’Dea. and pleaded not guilty. Opening the prosecution, Sergeant J.Henry stated that defendant. had been arrested in Riddiford Street shortly before five o’clock when commencing to drive his car from Riddiford Street, where it had been parked. “I came to the conclusion that Ryan had undoubtedly had l some liquor,” said Dr. R. G. B. Sinclair, who had examined' defendant at 5.15 p.m. at the police, station. Defendant’s speech was slightly slurred, though that may have been natural. He smelt of liquor, and his gait was slighly unsteady. “I feel very much upset by this case,” continued witness.- “It was a borderline case.” The magistrate: “Would yon have been content for him to drive your wife and children to Wanganui in a car?” Witness: “While I do not _ think there was a. great- deal of risk, I would rather I drove myself.” JUDGMENT AFFECTED. Answering Sergeant Henry, witness said that defendant may nave had sufficient liquor to affect his finer judgment. Mr. O’Dea : “Would you say he was in a fit condition to drive?”

Witness: “He may have been. I cannot be more definite than that.” Smithson Eden Corry, who was passing through Riddiford Street shortly before five o’clock on the evening mentioned. ' gave evidence of having seen a car back suddenly and run over a bicycle, while the Maori who had a. moment previously been holding the bicycle on the running board rolled to the ground. “I thought that the movements of the car were a' trifle spasmodic,” said' witness in reply' to the sergeant. .Evidence of having had two drinks in an hotel with defendant was given by a. Maori, Whana Mataka, of Normanby, who could not recollect whether the time was. morning or afternoon. It was “a long time after” that witness’ bicycle was run over in Riddiford Street by a. car. Defendant was in ■'the car. “I said, what you doing. He called me bad names, and I said I see you after if you talk like that,” said witness.

Constable Mullan, who with Sergeant Henry-had. been attracted to the scene in Riddiford Street, said he had seen defendant offering money to a native who was standing by the car with a. bicycle, the wheel of which was buckled. The sergeant had asked defendant to get out of the car, and as lie -did so it was obvious that- defendant had/ been drinking.' :At the police station defendant remained ; seated for three-quarters of an hour playing with the 6s he had previously offered the MOori. CONSTABLES’ OPINIONS. “In my opinion he was undoubtedly under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and not in a fit condition to he in charge of a ; car on the highway,” said' the constable after describing the examination of defendant carried out by Drs. Sinclair and Buist. Had witness seen defendant in the street, however, he would not have arrested him for drunkenness. Mr. O’Dea: “You differ from Dr. Sinclair, constable.” In a lengthy reply witness maintained that defendant was: not fit to be in charge of a car, though witness was prepared to admit it was a teorderline case from the point of view of actual intoxication. Mr. O’Dea: “Do you say lie was noticeably showing signs of liquor?” —Witness: “Yes.” “That’s in the eye of a policeman, of course?” —“In the eye of a policeman who tries to he just and fair.” During further cross-examination witness said that after defendant left the station he noticed he had a natural roll in his . walk, due, • witness understood, to some trouble with an anlite. “In my opinion he was undoubtedly affected by liquor, and I would not have trusted myself in a. car with him,” said Constable Thomasen., who had seen defendant at the station. Mr. O’Dea : “But you say he was very unsteady, whereas Constable Mullan says he was only slightly .so. Who is right?” Witness: “In my opinion I am.” Mr. O’Dea: “Then you admit it is possible for there- to be two opinions?” “Yes,” DRIVER’S FIVE DRINKS. Sergeant Henry gave evidence that when he approached the car defendant was holding out 6s. through the side urtains to the sergeant. Mr O’Dea : “He couldn’t have, known who it was.” < The sergeant: “That was the effect of the '.inuor he had -had.” • Defendant walked unsteadily after getting out of the car, continued the sergeant. At the station defendant had at first stated he had three drinks in the morning; later lie said he had two drinks in the morning and three in the afternoon. After describing the tests applied by the doctors at- the station. the seigeSnt said the case was a. borderline one. but defendant was not in a fit condition to drive a ear and the sergeant felt he would have been ■ailing in hi© duty had he allowed defendant to 1 take the car on the highway. • Questioned c'oselv by Mr O’Dea, the sergeant declared that despite Dr Buist or any -other medical man. lie .would l maintain that the unsteadiness o£ .-.gait ■of defendant was more the result of iquor than of a defective ankle. The sergeant’s observation® were made in the light o-f 32 years’ experience in dealing with cases of - drunkenness. When defendant was spoken to concerning examination by a doctor, tee had demanded that Mr O’Dea, -be sent for. “It was you be most wanted,” Vritid the sergeant to Mr O’Dea. Mr O’Dea-: “I should say tee was a very wise man. CONTENTIONS FOR- DEFEND ANT. Replying to Mr O’Dea, tlio magistrate he'd there was a case to answer, i pr. W. F. Buist, who examined defendant about an hour and -a half after

the latter had arrived at the • station, rave the opinion that though-defendant bind liaci alcohol he was. not in; ai sitate 1 ,f intoxication. He was in an exoitea condition. Witness, who had attended defendant professionally, knew the latter wa«' affected by j trouble with an ankle. ' ' ’ Stergeant Henry t : “When you examined defendant he had been -at the station for an hour and thirty-five-min-utes. W-o-uld it. have been pojssib’ie for his condition to alter during . that time?”—Witness: “Yes.” On further cross-examination, witness gave the opinion that defendant was then fit to drive a. car. . . • Defendant, in evidence, stated that he was quite capable of driving. 7 He bad had two drinks in the morning and three in the afternoon. “Had l I thought 1 was not fit to drive the. car I. would not have ,c;ot into it,” he said. _ : ante'to town on the previous-afternoon and stayed for the night at an hotel, where he remained for the greater part of the dav before going to the car to return home. • • - , • Defendant- wa© cross-examined close■y by Sergeant Henry and]. the magistrate as to his movements on the day mentioned in the. charge. _ _ . “I am clearly of the opinion that the charge is provedsriid^.the. magis-t-rate, in reviewing the leVr deuce,. A man was intoxicated when lie showed signs of 'liquor and- the medical!, eyi{2*6lloo ixmited to tlis/t conclusion _rn riie present case. Admitting that deend ant may have been only on the borderline of intoxication _ when he went to the oar, it was probable-that,, with the -action of the -air and the car movement he would have been affected to a much greater extent before proreodinp- far on the journey. He remarked on the inability- of defendant, to give the court a clear account or : ris doings during the day, and. sard defendant, knowing he had to drive 'home, had done wrong in deliberate's- choo-s----i- to spend the day at an hotel, '•here he took ’ liq uor. Referring to defendant,’© contention that he was fit to drive, the ma.gi-stra.te said the common experience of'a man under the influence of liquor was to receive the ilthat he was in better than normf.,l oendit-km and that otlvsrs were not normal. . , . A’ter inquiring of counsel concerning defendant’s financial 1 condition, the magtetrat-e entered the . conviction and line ns indicated. - ■ r- -