CHARGES DISMISSED

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 24 August 1935, Page 7

CHARGES DISMISSED

CASE AGAINST MOTORIST SEQUEL TO COLLISION AT INAHA ONLY ONE CONVICTION. Two of the three charges against Douglas Hamilton Jones, of Manaia, of driving a car while intoxicated, and with failing to keep to his left side of the road and causing an accident by colliding with, another car, were dismissed by Mr W, H. Woodward, S.M.. in giving reserved judgment in the Hawera Magistrate’s Court yesterday. On a charge of using indecent language Jones was fined £l. Costs amounting to £7 were added to the penalty. On a charge of driving without a license he was fined 10s with 10s costs. To this charge he had entered a plea of 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 M. Niccol appeared for defendant.

On the charge of failing to keep to the left, Mr Woodward said that the evidence for the prosecution was that of a number of people, all of whom had strong views on the subject of drink. The defendant had kad some drink and they smelt this on him. The account of how the collision, occurred as given by the prosecution was inherently more improbable than that of the witnesses for the defence, who asserted that Kirk’s car had been the one to swerve. “There seems to be room for honest error on the part of the witnesses for the prosecution as to the cause of the collision and as to whether the defendant’s car did swerve into the other,” said Mr Woodward. “I do not- propose to convict on this charge. Regarding the charge of intoxication, Mr Woodward said that here also the witnesses for the prosecution had strong views on the subject. Defendant admitted having one shandy. The evidence that defendant was sober was supported by passengers in the car, some of whom were very good witnesses. Defendant had taken over the wheel from another driver who was drunk, and tbfe fact that he disappeared shortly after the accident may have caused the assumption that he gone away to sober up. “However, the reasons for his absence have been quite satisfactorily explained to me,” said the magistrate. There was room for honest mistake in that he was staggering when he got out of the ear, but this was due to the fact that he had been thrown against the steering wheel and had been winded. I prefer to believe the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses,” said the magistrate “not that I think that the police witnesses were telling lies, but that there was room for honest mistake. “Regarding the language charge, the police witnesses gave the words and the circumstances under which they were used,” said Mr Woodward- “ There is no room for any mistake here. Either the police -witnesses have conspired together to commit perjury, or they are telling the truth.” The witnesses did not appear to have the same strong views on the subject of bad language as they did concerning drink “The witnesses for the defence say they heard no bad language, but it was admitted by the defence that there were heated words and some bad language used,” said Mr Woodward. “However, it is quite clear that defendant was not in the company of the women passengers all of the time. A mail would be a low cur to use the words complained of in the presence o women, one of whom was Ins mother “I have either to find that there was perjury on the part of the police witnesses or that I believe their evidence ” he concluded. ‘I do find that bad language <vas used, hnt not in the presence of women, and on that charge defendant would be convicted. To Mr Niccol, the magistrate said that he would remember the fact that the lagnuage was not used in the presence of women when imposing a I>e OnMr Niccol’s application defendant was allowed a month in which to pay the fine.