SNEEZE BLAMED

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 51, Issue 3139, 13 July 1942, Page 3

SNEEZE BLAMED

CAUSED CAR ACCIDENT DRIVER FOUND NEGLIGENT CRASH INTO WAIHOU BRIDGE “It appears to me that your whole case depends on a sneeze,” His Worship, Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., told counsel (Mr G. J. Foy) in the course of hearing charges at a sitting of the Te Aroha Magistrate’s Court against John Amet for negligent driving and being drunk while in charge of a car. The police evidence was to the effect that some time (before '6 p.m. on May 9, defendant -was in the bar of the Waihou Hotel and at closing time entered his car, in company with two passengers and drove off in the direction of Waitoa. The car, so far as could be ascertained, was properly lighted and in good order. There was no traffic on the road and when the party had proceeded about two miles, the car crashed into the abutment of a concrete bridge. All three men were injured and were, a little later, conveyed to Te Aroha for medical attention by a passing motorist. While attending to defendant, Dr. Lawrence discovered he was in a state of intoxication. The man was later taken to hospital and. while there, was interviewed by the police. To them he stated that he was suffering from a severe cold and had taken some rum. Doctor’s Evidence

Called upon to give evidence, Dr. W. R. Lawrence stated that he had (been called upon on the night in question to attend three men who had (been hurt in a motor smash. The only outward injury he discovered upon defendant was a laceration on the chin which required stitching. He had, however, a cough and a slight temperature, and in view of his exposure to the night air, he deemed it wise to have him admitted to the local hospital. The doctor stated that Arnet smelt strongly of alcohol'and had taken drink. He was also very unsteady on his feet and in witness’ opinion was in such a condition that would impair his effi--1 ciency in driving a car. (Under cross-examination 'by Mr Foy, Dr. Lawrence said that, as he did not., see the man until some time after the accident, he naturally could 1 not state what condition he was in '■ when it occurred. He would assume from his condition when brought to the rooms, however, that he was under the influence of alcohol. Mr Foy put it to him that shock and anxiety would cause a patient who had only ■ a moderate amount of liquor to be-

come in a condition simulating alcoholic intoxication. The doctor replied that he considered the defendant had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol.

Mr F. W. Carter, who was returning from Hamilton that night, stated that he had been stopped at the scene of the accident and asked to convey defendant and two other men to Te Aroha. Witness could not say what condition defendant was in as far as sobriety was concerned. He had 'been considerably (knocked about and thought he was pretty shaky.

Considered Him Sober

James D. Cooper, who had been a passenger in the car, gave evidence to the effect that he had met Arnet in the Waihou Hotel and asked him for a ride home. Although defendant had had a drink, witness considered him quite sober. He admitted that he asked him for a ride home. Although defendant had had a drink, witness considered him quite sober. He admitted that he asked him if he was all right and defendant had replied that he was. It was also admitted, in answer to a question from the Magistrate, whether this was not a cheeky question, that the reply greatly exceeded the question in its impudence. As far as witness could say the car was driven normally until the crash occurred.

Constable W. Monson stated that he examined the car, which was wedged into the abutment of the bridge. The wing of the bridge was broken and hinging by the iron bars which reinforced it. The car, which was* extensively damaged, contained several bottles of beer and lemonade.

Addressing the court, Mr Foy said that the case for the defence rested upon whether the police had proved beyond all reasonable doubt that defendant was under the influence of liquor. He pointed out that while the defence would be the first to admit that Dr. Lawrence’s evidence was fair, nevertheless the doctor could not say beyond all reasonable doubt that prior to the crash (that is, threequarters of an hour before his examination of the defendant) defendant was under the influence of alcohol sufficient to render him unfit to be in charge of a car. Adjournment Allowed

His Worship: You also have to satisfy me regarding the' charge of negligent driving and how he came to hit the comer of that bridge if he was neither negligent nor drunk. Mr !Foy stated that his client was suffering from a cold which had necessitated him being kept in hospital for four days after the accident. He had sneezed violently when approaching the bridge ai{d this involuntary act had caused him to fail to turn his car in order to negotiate the bridge.

His Worship: Then your whole de

fence rests on a sneeze.

A short adjournment for the court was then allowed while Mr Foy conferred with his client.

Plea Entered

Upon proceedings' being resumed it was stated that defendant would plead guilty to negligent driving but turned men from the present war will not guilty to being drunk in charge of a car.

His Worship: The position as I view it is this: this man is going along a road and runs into the buttress of a bridge. There is nothing on the road and no headlights of

other vehicles. As he approaches the bridge he sneezes and runs into the abutment. I hold that this is negligent thought the sneeze may be a con* tributing factor. I would have been forced to find him guilty even if he had not pleaded so.

In the case of the intoxication charge His Worship said that, as the doctor did not put defendant through the prescribed form of procedure because of his anxiety to get him -into hospital and the contributing factor of shock from the accident in which he had received a severe blow on the chest from the steering-wheel, the charge would be dismissed.

A penalty of £2 10s with costs was imposed on the charge of negligent driving.—Te Aroha News.