MOTOR COLLISION CASES

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 30 January 1930, Page 10

MOTOR COLLISION CASES

MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT ON PROSECUTION.

“INSUFFICIENT POLICE EVIDENCE..”

“In this case, as in many other cases, the police were called to. the scene of the accident, and, on arrival, found the cars in certain positions and with certain skid merits visible. They then took statements from both parties concerned. That is'all the evidence for the prosecution, and it is clearly insufficient. The police, by charging both parties, created, as it were, a. triangular duel, relying upon the evidence of on© party to convict another. They are not entitled to do so. The evidence for the police should be. sufficient in itself to secure a. conviction. The result of the existing practice is that the evidenoe of the respective (parties is in direct conflict, and it is_ impossible for the court -to apportion the blame.”

With these remarks, Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., dismissed an action in the Haweira Magistrate’s! Court yesterday in which the police proceeded! against E. J. Watson and I. It. Perica for alleged breaches of the motor regulations. Watson, for whom Mr Beedhey appeared, was charged with having failed to give way to traffic approaching from his right, while Perica, joproseuted by Mr O’Doai, was charged with having failed to -put out his right hand wheat turning out of traffic. .Length-'- evidence was heard during the case, which was the sequel to a collision'between two ears at the intersection of High and Princes Street on Christmas Day. At the conclusion, the magistrate remarked that there was such a conflict of evidence that lie would not convict either party. ‘'l suggest that the police should not lend themselves iais a ea.ts.paw to' have the blame apportioned between the parties in a case which is properly one for civil action,” added Mr Solonion.

. FINES IMPOSED. Arising out of a collision at the corner of Turuturu and Glover Beads between two cars, also on Christmas Day, H. E. Johnson (Mr Smart) was charged with having failed to give way to traffic approaching from his right, and -C. E. Ba.mes (Mr O’Dea.) with negligent driving. The evidence was to the effect that Joil ixsoti was turn in out of TuTuturu Bead into Glover Bond, while Barnes had been proceeding along Glover Road. Johnson stated that when ho had seen the other car lie had! had ample room and time in which to make the turn, hut alleged that excessive speed on the part of Bairnesi had been the cans? of the accident. Tile defendant Barnes alleged that he was travelling at not more than 20 miles ail hour, and had considered that Johnson had seen him and had conceded the right of way. The magistrate, after - hearing the evidence, remarked that it was clear that both parties were at fault, but more so .Barnes, there being strong evidence of excessive speed on his part. Johnson was approaching a very dangerous | corner, with the intention of turning [ into a main road, where lie should have 1 expected heavy traffic. He had failed j to keep a. proper look-out. : A fln.> of £4, with costs, was imposed upon Barnes, while Johnson was mulcted in the sum of £2, also with FAILED TO GIVE WAY. ! A fine of £2 and costs was imposed on R. M. Sharrock, who was charged with having failed to give way tor traffic approaching from his right.