INTOXICATED MOTORIST

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 17 July 1929, Page 6

INTOXICATED MOTORIST

HEAVY PENALTY IMPOSED

At t.lio Eltluun Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Maurice Ingram Jury, a resident of Stratford, appeared to answer a charge of being in a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor car on the Mountain Road, Ngaere, on June 13. A further charge of negligent driving was also preferred against the defendant.

Sergeant Henry conducted the case ior the police, Mr A. Coleman (Stratford.) appearing on behalf of file defendant, who pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Stanley George Burgess, carrier, of New Plymouth, deposed to driving a one-ton lorry from Hawera on June 13 and calling upon a Ngaere resident, Mr T. W. Bond for the purpose of delivering a parcel. His lorry was drawn to the side of the road when he made the call. Witness noticed, the lights ol' an approaching car and before reaching Mr Bond’s house he heard two distinct crashes, which, on investigation, proved to be caused by liisi lorry being struck twice by defendant’s car, driven by the latter. * The lights of witness's lorry were on when fie left to make the call and the tail light was still burning lifter the collisions. There was a passenger in Jni-y’s car and witness called the attention of both Jury and the passenger to the light, which was discernible at two hundred yards, in witness’s opinion, Jury was under the influence of liquor. With the exception of July’s car there was no other traffic in view within a quarter of a

mile when witness left the lorry to deliver the parcel. To Mr Coleman: Witness was positive his tail light was not obscured by any part of the load at the time of or previous to the collision. In accordance with the motor regulations, witness telephoned the police- and reported 'tlie collision. Jury was apparently dazed, hut in witness’s opinion this was not due to any accident resulting from the collision.

Thomas \\ illiam Bond, a butcher, residing on Mountain Road, Ngaere, described the positions of the car and lorry after the collision opposite his residence. The lorry tail light was burning. This was so placed that it was easily discernible, hut at close range it would not he so clearly seen. Defendant shove cl signs of having taken liquor, bait was not incapable. Stanley Gordon Hamilton Bend, living with the previous witness (his father) at Ngaere, said on reaching the scene of the collision all the lorry lights were burning. The road* at the spot was in good condition and there was amples room for two motor vehicles to pass each other. So far as ho knew, vhe ear and lorry were not moved from their positions before the arrival of the police.

!oonsita|hile Townsend, Elitham, described tlie positions and condition of the two vehicles. On inquiring for the d river of the motor car, he was informed that Jury and Ms passenger friend were having a cup of tea at Mr Bond’s house. Entering the house, witness was met by Jury, who expressed sorrow for what had occurred. Jury was under the influence of liquor and said he had been down at tlie place where the flying machine was. Defendant said he did not see the lorry until almost on to' it. Witness took a statement from defendant’s friend, who was also under the influence of liquor and kept on “chipping in.’’ The latter said lie had partaken of no drink sine© about three o’clock at Stratford. Jury complained of a pain in the chest and expressed a: wish to sec a doctor. Witness drove his own car to Dr Saunders’ surgery at Elthaan, taking defendant with liim. as a patient, but net under arrest.

To Mr Cbtleman : Though Jury and Ids friend ma.y state that they had no drink in Stratford at about three o'clock, witness was positive that Eltliani wa.s not mentioned as the place where the. drink was taken. After leaving , the surgery wiith Jury and Ins friend. n<» request, was milde 'by them for witness |o drive* them home to S trat-ford. ,l>r. Crawford., of Ell.ham, said lie understood his examination of .Jury was made at the request of the police. A close examination of Jury did not disclose evidence of injury to account for a pain in the chest complained of. He specifically advised Jury to consult his own doctor at Stratford. There was an odour of alcohol about Jury, but what lie said in the surgery wa.s quite rational. CASE FOR THE: DEFENCE. Maurice 1. Jury, the defendant, said ho and lid,y friend Sinclair left Stratford on the day in question at about iI.JO, proceeding to Elltham, on their way to the golf links- to witness an aviation exhibition. At Eltliam they each had one drink, witness taking a sherry and bitters. After the flight exhibition witness round the benzine tank in bis car was empty and he obtained a lilt into Eilthami to .procure a supply, returning at once to the car. On the return home to Stratford no stop was made at Elltham. Approaching Ngaere witness did not sec burgess's lorry, which stood at an angle, until immediately before the impact. As a result of the collision witness was severely bruised about the chest and abdomen and had been under attention by Dr. Stevens (Stratford) since about 10 p.m. on June 1.3. After examination by Dr Orawtord witness asked Constable Townsend if lie were not going to- drive Sinclair and him seif home to Stratford. The_ constable declined, saying “Oh! You 11 get home all right,” and drove away. Witness and Sinclair met Stratford people in Elltham and were driven to Stratford, arriving there at 0 -ID p.m

To Sergeant Henry: After replenishing the benzine supply he loft the Jiving ground at about (5.30 p.m. and proceeded straight towards Stratford, not stopping at Elltham. Arthur Henry Nelson, carrier, a member of the Stratford Borough Council, deposed to attending a dinner at the Central Hotel, .Elthani. on June 13, after which he met Jury and Sinclair and drove them to Stratford, stopping eii route at Ngaere to remove tools I'roni Jury’s car. in his opinion, if Jury had taken liquor during the day, hut. its effects had worn off. Alexander Coieman, farmer, of Ngaere, Robert A. Scott, motor engineer, Eltham, and Hillary Cower fwho drove Jury back to the golf links with a supply of benzine), gave evidence of being in Jury’s compauy at various times between (j and 7 p.m. on June 13, when they saw n:> signs of liquor on him. William Siinc fair, motor mechanic. Strafford, corroborated the evidence given by the defendant. They had been in each other’s company from the time, of leaving Stratford and it wasi m,pus slide for Jury to partake of I liquor during that time without witness’s knowledge. Had there been a suspicion of Jury’s incapability, witness would have, volunteered to drive flie car to Stratford. .Except for the fact that immediately before the collision of the car and lorry the former had to surmount a rise in the road, witness could offer no explanation why the lorry tail light was not seen by

witness or Jury. Witness was knocked silly by tlie impact and could not say -whether the tall light was burning or not.

This closed the evidence and Mr Colewain’.s attempted review of the case was cut short by the magistrate, who stated that he had no doubt on tlie subject and expressing the conviction that he did not know when such cases were going to end, said he would enter a conviction and fine of C 25 on the first charge, with £3 17s lOd costs. Defendant’s license would he suspended and he would he disqualified for three vears.

Sergeant Henry agreed to a withdrawal of the charge of negligent driving.