DECISION RESERVED

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 16 August 1935, Page 9

DECISION RESERVED

CHARGES AGAINST MOTORIST “CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE” COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE Comment on the extraordinary amount of conflicting evidence was made by Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., at the Hawera Court yesterday in reserving his decision in the case in which Douglas Hamilton Jones, of Maliaia, faced four charges following a motor collision near ltiverdale Dairy Factory tin June 3. Jones was charged with driving a car while under the influence of liquor, driving a car on his wrong side of the road, driving without a license and with using obscenp language. To all the charges, with the exception of that of driving without a license, Jones pleaded not guilty. The collision near the Riverdale factory involved a car driven by Jones 'and one driven by Algar Gordon Kirk. Sergeant J. Henry conducted the prosecution, while Mr if. Niccol appeared for defendant. ; The hearing of evideuce occupied two days. The action was commenced on August 2, but was adjourned to allow the appearance of one more police witness. When the case for the defendant commenced yesterday, Mr Niccol pointed out that the four women passengers in Jones’ car were reluctant witnesses, and he asked for suppression of their names. Mr Woodward said he would consider the request after the hearing of evidence. SUPPRESSION NOT xYLLOWED When the last witness had given evidence, Mr Woodward said that he could not make an order for suppression. He doubted if he had the power. He would ask the Press to i note, however, that it was perfectly clear that the women passengers had no reason to be ashamed of the part they had played in the occurrence on the night of June 3. Mr. Niccol asked that the charges should be dismissed without the appearance. in the box of the defendant. He pointed out that defendant had a heavy cold, which interfered with his speech. However, he was quite prepared to proceed, or agree to an adjournment, whichever Mr Woodward thought best. “There has been such an extraordinary conflict in evidence that I am bound, even at the expense of further prolonging the case, to hear other evidence,’’ said Mr. Woodward. He regretted to note it, but the conflict of evidence was particularly marked in the case.

The evidence of defendant was heard and the court adjourned at 6.45 p.m. When the “Hawera Star” went to press yesterday, Kathleen Hickey, a passenger ifi defendant’s car, had given evidence, while Eileen Harrison, another passenger, had completed the first portion of her evidence. Cross-examined by the sergeant, witness said that she thought the impact took place opposite the stationary car, mentioned in earlier evidence. She admitted that she had previously stated that she did not have a good view when the accident occurred, because she was in the back seat, and could not say whether the impact had occurred before they passed the car. She considered Kirk to be on his wrong side. She did not hear Jones use any bad language.

“NO SIGNS OF LIQUOR” William Gcoige John Budd, motor mechanic, of Manaia, said he arrived at the scene of the accident at some time between 11.15 and 11.30 p.m. Jones had come up to speak to hint, and there were no signs of Jiquor. He heard no bad language from anyone, although Hume, one of the passengers, was intoxicated. Elizabeth Mary Jones, mother of defendant, in evidence referred to the intoxication of Hume, who had changed places with her son at the steering wheel. When the accident occurred, Jones received a blow in the stomach. She helped him from the car and was certain there was no bad language. To the magistrate, witness said there were not the beginnings cf truth in the statements of previous witnesses that she had tried to stop her son from swearing. Evidence on the same lines as that of other passengers in Jones’ car was given by Leah Haughton, who stressed the point that Jones was on his correct side of the road. Jones was perfectly sober, and she had not heard him use bad language. During the evening she may have heard one or two mild “cuss” words, but there was no indecent language. DEFENDANT GIVES EVIDENCE Douglas Hamilton Jones related events which preceded the arrival of the party at Manaia to visit his sister, who had been married that day. Defendant said that until he went to Manaia, he had no- liquor. At Manaia, however, the party and others had toasted the couple with “shandies.” The only drink he had was one shandy. He related how he had changed places at the wheel with Huine, because the latter was intoxicated. Referring to the collision, he said the impact occurred opposite the roar door of the stationary car. He was temporarily knocked out, and when he recovered he found he was being supported by his mother and Miss Usekey. . He denied that he us-d the language mentioned in the charges. Witness referred to his action after he had secured a lift to Haw-era. He had one whisky 'to steady bis nerves as he was feeling ill. Ho was on ins correct side of the road, and any witnesses who said he bad swerved were wrong. Cross-examined by Sergeant Henry, j Jones said that he had heard thatj

the stationary car was driven by an Opunake school teacher. The told the bench he had a statement from the driver of the car. COUNSEL’S OBJECTION Mr. Niccol: This is the sort of thing I object to. The sergeant is not producing all the evidence, despite the fact that he has power to secure the name of the driver and his appearance in court. It is surprising. Mr Woodward: You must remember that the sergeant was limited to only one more witness- at the last hearing of the case. Sergeant Henry : If it had not been for that I would certainly have had the driver in court. Mr. Niccol: It is surprising. Further cross-examined, defendant denied that he had used bad language when he “came around.” He considered that Kirk was on his wrong side. It was probably animosity on the part of the Muggeridges which prompted them to give evidence against him. “TWO DISTINCT STORIES” There were two distinct stories of the main facts of the case, said Mr Niccol in his address. The evidence for defendant, he claimed, showed that Jones had had only one shandy. The words alleged to have been used by defendant had been extracted from the police witnesses only with difficulty. The four women witnesses for defendant had been reluctant to come to court, and it was hardly likely they were prepared to commit perjury. Mr Niccol also maintained that the police witnesses had placed different emphasis on the context of the bad language charge, several having substituted other words for certain of those used on* the sheet. He also considered that the evidence had shown that Jones had been driving oil bis correct side of the road when the collision occurred. Referring again to the indecent language charge, Mr. Niccol held that this was most serious, and being an indictable charge required more reliable evidence than the other charges. He alleged discrepancies in the police evidence and considered that Jones should be given the benefit of any doubt. The evidence for the prosecution was briefly reviewed by Sergeant Henry, who said it had been given in a straight-forward manner