CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 22 March 1938, Page 3

CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT.

DUTY TO STOP AFTER , ACCIDENT. WOMAN JUMPS FROM CAR (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Last Night. A case stated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal is being argued before the Chief Justice and Justices Blair, Kennedy, Callao and Northcroft, At the February sessions of the Supreme Court at Auckland Kenneth Frank Bowden was arraigned on an indictment containing three counts in effect charging him: (1) That on August 25, 1987, at Kawakawa, being the driver of a motorcar and an accident arising directly or indirectly from its use having occurred to Dulcie May -Squire, he failed to stop; (2) that an accident having so occurred, he failed to ascertain whether he had injured Miss Squire, in which event it was his duty to render her all practicable assistance, and (3) that he failed to render all practicable assistance after such an accident. The facts of the case were briefly that about 10,45 on the night in question accused was driving along the main street of Kawakawa while in a state of intoxication. The night was windy, and it was raining heavily, A friend was sitting with accused in the front seat of the car. Seeing Miss Squire walking along the street, Bowden offered to drive her home, and Miss Squire entered the car and sat in the back scat behind the driver. Instead of turning into the street where Miss Squire lived Bowden drove past and Miss Squire opened the back door of the car, and "while it was travelling at about 15 miles per hour she jumped out on to the roadway, sustaining a broken arm and other injuries. At the trial of the case before Mr. Justice Callan and a jury it was contended on behalf of accused that the evidence tendered by the Crown, even if accepted, did not disclose the commission by accused of any of the offences with which he was charged. After argument these submissions were ruled against, and the case proceeded, his Honour having indicated that, if accused should be found guilty, he would state a case for .the Court of Appeal. After a retirement of four hours the jury failed to agree, and a new trial was ordered to be heard at the May sessions, A ease was accordingly stated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The questions for consideration are: 1. Did the evidence tendered by the Crown disclose the commission of any of the offences charged in the indictment or of any offence under section 5 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1930 (which imposes upon drivers of motor vehicles a duty to stop after an accident to ascertain whether any person has been injured, and if so, to render all practicable assistance; 2. Whether the direction to the jury was right in law; 3. Under section 5 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, whether a motorist can be convicted of the offence of failing to render all practicable assistance to a person injured unless he has ascertained or is aware he had injured a person. Mr. R. K. Trimmer, on behalf of I Bowden, submitted that the facts dirt i not create an offence within the plain i meaning of the words used in the 1 Statute. The facts did not constitute s an "accident." If they .did, then it 1 was not an accident which arose direct- 1 ly or indirectly from the use of a motor £ vehicle. f After hearing further legal argument i the Court adjourned. 1