INTOXICATED MOTORIST

Hawera Star, Volume L, 30 July 1930, Page 4

INTOXICATED MOTORIST

MAN'S THIRD OFFJCNCe. IMPRISONMENT AND DISQUALIFICATION. At the Eltham Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., Francis Kemp, labourer, of Te Popo, pleaded guilty to being intoxicated while in charge of a. motor ear at Hastings Road, Mangatoki, on .Time 7. He was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment, with hard labour and iiis driver’s license was cancelled for two years.

Sergeant J. Henry (Hawera) conducted the prosecution and Mr. H. N. Moss (Stratford) appeared for defendant.

In evidence, Sergeant Henry said that defendant was refused admittance to a dance at Mangatoki and Constable Townsend was communicated with. Accosting Kemp at about 1 o’clock in the morning, the constable asked him to back his ear across the road, at the same time taking u.p a position on the running board, which he was compelled to relinquish when defendant increased his.speed. On the constable regaining his own car Kemp was out of sight. The defendant, it appeared, had later consulted a doctor at Stratford, but had got no satisfaction. He was, said witness, addicted to drink and was a menace on the road, being twice previously convicted for a similar offence (in October 1920 and June 1926). His license had been cancelled for three years on the last, occasion.

Witness pointed out to the Bench that such offences were on the increase in New Zealand, and offenders were sometimes given more consideration than they were entitled to. He thought it was time an example was made.

Mr. Moss said it would be recognised that he had taken a responsibility in urging defendant to plead guilty—the latter’s state of intoxication may have been open to doubt. He felfc it was the magistrate's duty to cancel defendant’s license for a substantial period. Such would be in the nature of a corrective. It had been shown that imprisonment had no corrective effect and was a degrading punishment. The offence was not associated with danger or damage to any person and did not arise out of any accident. Further, defendant was able to drive his car to Stratford and was sensible enough to consult a medical man, who had said that Kemp had taken more liquor than was good for him; still, he was able to drive the car, so the facts of the case were not very bad. His client had lost his head in running away from the constable. He was not addicted to drink and his employer spoke very well of him. He was engaged as a lorry driver and while in charge of the lorry would not drink. Defendant’s conduct on the night of June 7 showed that he was able to drive a car, otherwise he would have come to grief. For the past twelve months he had held a driver’s license without getting into trouble. As a married man with two young children it would be in the interest of the public and defendant himself if he were not sent to gaol. Stressing the fact that cancellation of his license would safeguard the defendant- from getting into, trouble, Mr. Moss asked his Worship to admit Kemp t-o probation and impose a prohibition order, in addition to the cancellation of his license.

The magistrate said the case had to lie taken on its merits. It was a grievous offence and lie would do what ho could to abate a public menace. The ability to drive when intoxicated made a. man the more dangerous, as when called upon in an emergency he was not able to exercise judgment. He ■considered that fines were quite useless, and he had taken the view that where first offenders came before him he would cancel their licenses and prohibit them. The only deterrent was imprisonment. He would fail in a duty to the public if he granted probation to the accused, who had pleaded guilty to the third offence. In imposing a sentence, of 14 days’ imprisonment with hard labour, and cancellation of defendant’s driver’s license for two. years, Mi*. Tate said lie had taken into consideration the facts that Kemp had been frank in his statements and something liad been said in liis favour.