CAR DRIVER NOT GUILTY

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 24 May 1932, Page 7

CAR DRIVER NOT GUILTY

MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE FAILS S FATAL SOUTH ROAD CRASH ALFRED WALKER ACQUITTED SUPREME COURT TRIAL (By Telegraph—Special to "The Star. ’) NEW PLYMOUTH, May 24. After a retirement of 35 minutes a verdict of not guilty was returned today by the jury in t-lie Supreme Court trial ’at New Plymouth of Alfred George Walker on charges of driving a motor car negligently on the South Road, near Hawera, on the night ol March 22, thereby causing the death •of Norman McLeod and also, under the Motor Vehicles Act, with driving in a negligent manner so as to cause death. Harold F. Tihbets, insurance; manager, of New Plymouth/said he was on "the road in locality of the accident on the same night and saw the over-, turned ear. He had been on the road about a weak earlier and had had an unpleasant experience with Ibis car at j the same bend, and he attributed Ins skid to the nature of the roadway, which he got out and examined. Hia-d lie been going at any -speed he thought he would have had an accident similar to Walker’s. He temporarily lost.control! of his car. It was not a road which a motorist would think was dangerous, but the danger lay in a break between the edge of the bitumen and the metal surface. If a driver got on his wrong side he would he. in trouble. “FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY” In reply to the Crown Prosecutor witness' said a driver would be lulled into a false sense of security because of the excellent state of the road, but a big camber on the road at that bend and the state of the join of the metal and the bitumen made it dangerous. On the occasion he referred to he was travelling at about 3Q miles an hour. M-o.st of the roads about Hawera were excellent and that was why this place I was a bit of a trap, and he thought j it ought to be seen to at once. Cyril Leslie Dimick, garage proprietor of Hawera, deposed to an incident at the Farmers’ Co-op. garage, of which accused spoke when his steering l gear locked as he was backing out. l Witness arrived at the scene of the ■ accident before the police and the d-oc- ■ tor and he was of the opinion the accused with quite sober, though he ap- > peared dazed. - EVIDENCE- OF MAXIMUM SPEED. > The witness then said he made an [ examination ol the ear after the accident and detailed the damage. He did 3 not agree that the amount of play in - the steering wheel after the accident - was any guide as to what play there had been prior to the mishap. He - had dismantled the steering box fox 5 the purposes of his examination and estimated the play to be from three to four inches. He estimated that the engine was capable at that time of a speed of not more than 35 miles per hour. On one cylinder there was no compression whatever, which meant that much was left to the other three cylinders.

‘ To the Crown Prosecutor he admitted saying the car would not do more s than 35 miles per hour, but it would - now take the vehicle all its time to get ' up to 40. Under the circumstances he : thought accused would be driving the • car up to its maximum speed. He had , formed the opinion that the steering wheel had no more play than the average car, which was from three to four inches. The locking of the steering wheel was common in cars of that type when making a quick turn. That did not necessarily make it a dangerous car to drive, as a full lock was not likelv to occur in ordinary driving. Had" he thought the car dangerous he would have told Walker so at the time I lie was at the garage. All he told him was to bring ,the car in again if he experienced trouble. Oswald Allan, garage proprietor of Wanganui, who described himself as an expert in motor accident cases, detailed his examination of the car m question and said the play in the wheel was about four inches. He had, during Monday, tested several other cars and found they hjad a play up to almost 4\ inches. The “missing” one cylinder "would reduce the speed of the car by at least 25 per cent. He had had several experiences of accidents through a jam in the steering box. DRIVING TESTS ON ROAD. Witness described what he found as to the conditions of the roadway on an examination made for that purpose. He made a test of driving at the bend in question and found that in getting his car slightly over the camber of the road and then attempting to get back to the left the back of the car lurched uncomfortably, and that was when he was expecting something. His speed was about 20 m.p.h. His Honour : Then you consider this a dangerous piece of road. What speed do you think would be safe at that 1 point?

Witness: Knowing what I do now I think it is dangerous, and 20 to 25 miles per hour would be a safe speed for taking the bend. Continuing, ‘witness said he had three passengers when he made his test and they all remarked on the lurch made by the car. 1 Cross examined, witness said that j if a motorist was taken unawares an' accident was likely to happen on that bend at any time. The left side of the road was bumpy and likely to dedefleet the steering, and the right side was dangerous because of the wall of the camber. The safest place was on the centre of the road-way. He had not heard of any previous accidents on this bend until he came into this case. He understood tne re had been other accidents. Extra play on a steering wheel would not trouble a driver who knew his car. “BADLY CONSTRUCTED ROAD.” Edgar A. INlarchant, surveyor and civil engineer, of Wanganui, said he had visited the scene of the accident and considered the road .very, badly constructed. He though the width of the bitumen surface of the road had been extended since the original work, and that probably accounted for the ridges referred by some of the witllGWitness dealt technically with the effect of momentum in. relation. to SI> To 'the Crown Prosecutor he said that the bend of the road was extremely dangerous and should be attended to at once. It did not surprise him that there had not been more accidents at that locality. This was a case of a car geting on to the wrong

side of the read. The idea of banking roads on bends was to make fast driving safe. In his opinion the estimates of the speed 'of accused’s car were excessive and he thought the speed of the car was probably 2o miles an hour*. All that he saw could have happened with a car going at 25 miles an hour.

This concluded the evidence m the • case and counsel for defence proceeded to address the jury, submitting that , the Crown had not merely left the matter in doubts but had totally failed to establish proof of negligence. In his address the Crown Prosecutor j asked the jury to consider how the accident could have happened apart from the negligence of the accused. He also stated that if the road was as bad as it was said to be by witnesses for the defence then it was a public scandal that it should he allowed to remain in that condition a day longei than was necessary. JUDGE’S SUMMING UP. In his summing up the judge first referred to the two counts in the indictment, and said they were merely alternative and gave the jury an opportunity of finding a verdict of guilty of negligence, even if they did not think negligence was of that degree and what could be termed as manslaughter. He then dealt with the duty"” of motorists to take reasonable care in the control of their cars, and their criminal responsibility if tliej neglected to take such caic. The evidence was then examined by }his Honour in relation to the condition i of the road and visibility at the time ! of the accident. He said an accident of this kind was not such as should happen and, therefore, theic a prim a facie case for the accused to answer • but that- was not sufficient to ' establish his guilt. The Crown had to prove bevond all reasonable doubt that • the death of this young man was the 1 result of negligence of the accused. His Honour referred to the increasing numbers of motor fatalities E throughout the country,- and he said > that the degree of care which motorists were required to exercise was largely in the hands of juries who tried such cases. If they came to the con- . elusion that there was negligence it 1 was their plain duty to convict, but \ tliev must also he careful not to conb vict any innocent person. They must l not allow a feeling of sympathy or any t other consideration to weigh with them, * but had to conclude the matter on the ’ evidence that had been placed before 0 them Thev had the fact that the ‘ accused’s car was defective and that lie had had previous trouble with it, G and thev must consider whether m 3 fjrivincr the car in that condition he a was negligent, and his negligence was “ the cause of death of the man Heel I.eod. n The jury retired at 12.20 p.m. and returned at five minutes to one with a a verdict of not guilty and the prisoner g was discharged.