CHARGE DISMISSED

Hawera Star, Volume L, 27 November 1930, Page 7

CHARGE DISMISSED

DANGEROUS DRIVING ALLEGED

CONFLICTING STATEMENTS

Following thy presentation of evidence in the Hawera Court yesterday Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M.. dismissed a charge preferred against George William Pickering, insurance inspector, oi having driven a car in a manner dangerous to the public at Hawera on the* evening of October 1 22. Mr St. L. Reeves appeared for plaintiff, who pleaded not guilty. Outlining the circumstances, Sergeant T. J. McGregor, who conducted the prosecution, stated that at about 7.50 pan. a collision had l occurred on High Street between ears driven by defendant and a Hawera resident named Wills. No serious damage, or injury was occasioned. Defendant was driving out of Union Street and turning to the right in the direction ol’ King Edward Park, while the other car was travelling, on High Street towards the park. A third ear. moving on High /Street from the opposite direction, had stopped on the corner just before the collision occurred and might or might not have had a. certain influence on the mishap. EVIDENCE. CALLED. Arthur T. Wills said lie was driving on High Street in the direction of King Edward Parle. He was practically over the Union Street junction when defendant’s car, coining from behind and veering to the right, struck witness’ car at an angle, with a. slight impact. I Witness thought his car was travelling at about 15 miles an hour. The other ear was travelling faster. It skidded ■for about 14) yards. ■ He heard no horn sounded, nor did he see defendant’s car until practically the instant of the impact. John Douglas Scott, who had been ui the car driven by the previous, witness, gave, corroborative evidence. Joyce Marshall, of Waitara, who witnessed the occurrence from the doorwav of an office in High Street, said the car coming out of Union Street bumped that travelling on High Street and the rear of the former became engaged with the front of the latter. The car from Union Street appeared to be travelling last. Another car ivas travelling on High Street in the opposite direction from the two in the collision.

Constable Healy stated that skid marks for 11 yards showed in the track of defendant’s car. No marks showed in the track of the other. It appeared from the position of the cars that defendant’s car struck the other. In a subsequent statement defendant claimed that his car was struck by tfiat driven by Mr Wills.

Replying to Mr Reeves, witness said it appeared that defendant had! gone to the correct side of the junction when making the turn from Union Street. When he interviewed defendant witness told him. he had apparently no reason to worry about the matter. At that time, however, the constable had only defendant’s version of the incident. Addressing the court, Mr Reeves submitted that dangerous driving or negligence on the part of defendant had not been shown. DEFENDANT'S VERSION. Defendant stated in evidence that when he was coming to the junction lie saw a car on the right and slowed down to give it the right of way. The other car stopped and he then proceeded. He was still turning and thought he was in second gear when lie was pumped from behind by tlio car driven by the witness Wills. * He lia<l seen nothing of that car previously. He applied liis brakes and when the cars stopped 1 found his gear lever was forward in second position. Sergeant McGregor: Is it not possible that the other car which stopped did so because of your speed and the possibility of a collision. Defendant: I do not think so. Continuing witness .said lie was certain he was not at any time behind Wills’ car. His speed would l have been between 12 and 15 miles an hour. Re-examined by Mr Reeves, defendant stated: that from tile time lie .left the Central Hotel in Union Street up to the moment of t-lie impact he could, have stopped his car within two lengths had that been necessary. Standing on the corner lie saw the approach of both cars and the collision, 1 said Henry Francis Fredericks. The I car driven by Mr , Wills struck that driven by Mr Pickering and pushed it forward. The speed of defendant’s car up Union Street would be about 15 miles an hour. That of the other would be perhaps 20 miles an hour. Cyril Fredericks, a brother of the previous witness, .said lie had been with liim on the: corner and could support what he had stated in evidence. “This is a. charge of driving in a manner dangerous to the public and it has ’ been shown that a light impact took place,” said: the Magistrate. The whole crux of the question appeared to be the position of the car driven by the witness Wills just prior to the impact. A possible theory was that defendant, whose attention had previously been occupied with the car which had been on bis right, bad failed to observe the car idriven by Wills, but in dealing with the charge he had to decide, on facts, not theory. It had not- been proven that defendant- drove in a manner dangerous to the public and the information must;-, therefore,' be’ dismissed, e .