CYCLIST'S DEATH

Hokitika Guardian, 6 November 1936, Page 3

CYCLIST'S DEATH

,■/; \ £#AR GE AG AI NST MOTOR IST (Per' Press Association—Copy right). ,JNVE ; RCARGiLL, Noveinber 3. .. : Th&-heij;ring of ■ F e case arising out of the fatal ucf-ident at Wood lauds on tiie .'ni.Aiji... Iriver.cargill-Duiieam • highway,. cnV. October 22, began'iirtJi'e Supr6ttie.Court to-day before 3fr Jus- j tiee. Kennedy, when' Oharls Michael i Hughes -fag 'charged \vith ; negligently driying'a-niptor vehicle, tKerfeby causing the .death'of Wiliinm George Seddon Parker; and further with'- failing to' 'Stop arid render all practical... assistance;; jq f a; a 'motor, ; Occident.; " Accused' pleaded not guilty to bothn barges. . ( The Grown' Prosecutor (Mr H. J. MacAlisfer;,' said t'li'At'■ the second charge was 1 Aid 'under the Motpr Vehicles;;.Aniendmeht' Act, passed this year, which made it h'esessafy for the ' driver of .a vehii le to stop and; render ; ’ all 'practicable assistance to a person J injurfed. 'Accused did stop, arid it would bfe for' tlie jury to say whether j hA fdiifd to rhiidcr all , practicable aS- I sistriricely'lf they foynd that the per- j sort-injured'was dead or beyond human ' ■ aidj hiS .Honour ivoiild indicate thatl . the. jury woiild noli he justified in .con- | J '• vij^jS^'undeV 5 tiiai charge. It womd j ? apfreaa- tile? accident 'happened'eith- 11 left hand side of the road i was . found, or in the .< middle of the'road or at soirie'inter-/( ,

mediate point. In considering whether the accused had a guilty or an innocent mind in' the matter, the jury was entitled^ to look at his movements after the accident. Counsel contended that the accused made strenuous efforts to evade detection. That was clear from accused’s o\vii statement to the police. ■_ Al ter evidence had keen given, ms Honour said ‘ that he had formed the opinion the injured man - was dead w.iierv examined after the accident by a girl, who was with the accused- Ilis Honour indicated to counsel that on the second count lie would' direct the j jury that it should return'a. verdict cf not guilty. • For-tile defence, Air Smyth contended there was no real evidence 6f negligent driving. What was-the'eon-duct of accused? he asked. He en--.deavoured for some-time tu evade detection a-s tne driver of the truck; but Slater he had made a clean breast of the whole, accident. His statement did not disclose negligence in his driving. Lf the facts were not proved from 1 which it was possible to answer - how the accident occurred, the jury hrxl no right to find that th e accused' was' negligent; It was possible that the motor-ccylist was dazzled by the lights of the, lorry and.swerved- or skidded, thus causing the accident.. Counsel had not completed his address when the Court adjourned till to-morrow. : ,