UNLUCKY TRAILER

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 60, Issue 4343, 13 October 1950, Page 5

UNLUCKY TRAILER

TWO COLLISIONS PAEROA PROSECUTIONS FOUR CHARGES PREFERRED A trailer containing two horses was involved in two accidents on the night of June 17 last and as a result Maurice M. Kiely, of Waitoa, farmer, appeared before Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court in Paeroa on Monday last, charged with several offences against traffic regulations.

Four charges in all were preferred against defendant in respect o'f two separate sets of circumstances, the first relating to a. collision at Komata with a motor car driven by Laurence Fennessy Jones, of Komata, farmer, in respect of which defendant was charged with failing to keep to the left of the road.

The other charges related to a collision in Belmont road, Paeroa, later in the evening, when the horse trailer, then parked in B M elmont road became involved in a collision with a car driven by John Carrington Jamieson, of Awaiti, farmer, and out of those circumstances three pharges were preferred against defendant Kiely, namely, that he did leave a motor trailer not fully equipped with a light; that he did park the vehicle over two feet from the kerb and thirdly that no warrant of fitness had been obtained in respect of the trailer. Constable J.L. Brown, of Paeroa, conducted the proceedings on' behalf of the prosecution and Mr G. J. Foy, of Te Aroha; appeared for defendant and entered a plea of not guilty to alt charges excepting that of failing to have a.warrant of fitness. Laurence Fennessy Jones, of Komata, farmer, stated that June 17, 1950, was a dark night and at about 6 p.m. he was proceeding to his home at Komata in his car. There was a lot of traffic on the road as it was the night of Thames races. He saw a car with a trailer coming from Thames. He thought the approaching car was on its wrong side of the road. The tailer struck his car, the hub of the trailer wheel striking the running .board of his car. His car was on the correct side of the road. Witness said he got out of his car and spoke to the driver of the car with the trailer.' The driver did not come near witnessed car to see what damage had been done. There was much traffic at intervals on the road, said witness in reply to defendant’s counsel. He was certain he was upon his right side of the road. He saw the blue light and did not swerve after passing the car. When he went back to the 'car and trailer they were both upon the correct side of the road. Elizabeth Jones, wife of the previous witness, stated in evidence that she was a passenger in the car with her husband on June 17 when the accident happened. -The white line in the centre of the road had been freshly painted and their car was well upon its right side of the road. The approaching car seemed to be coming right upon their car and she thought there might ibe a collision but the approaching car swerved just in time to avoid the car but then the trailer struck thejr car. Matilda Royal, of Komata, informed the court that she was a passenger in Mr Jones' car. She was in the back seat, immediately behind the driver. She got out of the car, which was well on its right side of the road. Constable J. L. Brown informed the court that he interviewed the defendant who admitted he was the driver of the car which was 16 inches less in width than the trailer. Case For Defence

The defence was a denial that defendant was upon his wrong side? of the road.

Maurice Kiely, of Ngarua, farmer, stated that he was driving his car with trailer and two horses along the Thames road. Witness said that he was travelling at about 20 miles an hour. There was considerable traffic upon the road. He saw defendant’s car, which appeared to be close to his. He heard a crash and stopped about 10 to 15 yards after the crash. His position upon the road did not change after the crash. He got out of his car and found the trailer wheel next to the white line was one foot from the white line upon its correct side Matches were struck to make certain of the position. Passengers in his car got out of the car and examined the position of the car and trailer. His car was a new Vauxhaull. In answer to questions from Constable Brown witness stated that no damage was done to his trailer as far

as he could then see. He did not go :o look at Jones’ car.

Magistrate’s Decision

“The court is faced with a direct conflict of evidence,” said Mr Freeman, “and I must hold that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction for failing to keep to the left of the road. That charge will therefore be dismissed.”

Belmont Road Collision

The remaining charges related to the parking of the trailer in Belmont road after a blow out to the tyre of the trailer.

Mr Foy submitted that there was a conflict between the by-law and the regulations. The trailer was parked with one wheel off.

The magistrate suggested that as the circumstances were not normal the position would have to be viewed from those exceptional circumstances. 'John Carrington Jamieson, of Awaiti, stated that he was driving his car along Belmont road, Paeroa, on June 17 at night. He was passing a moving car arid came into collision with a horse trailer parked well out in the road. The inside wheel of the trailer was upon, the white line of the road to mark the extreme limit of parking. The trailer was between that line and the centre of the road. The trailer was not lighted at that time. He did not see the trailer before he hit it. Two horses were tied, to the trailer and there was no one in attendance upon the horses or trailer. Continuing, witness said that later he saw defendant, who said he had had a puncture.

In answer to defendant’s counsel witness said that if the trailer had been lighted he might have, seen it. He moved the trailer about eight feet when his car struck it. The jack under the wheel of the trailer was found under the wheel of his car upon the driver’s side. He was clear of the white line on his side of the road. Rees Gallagher, of Paeroa, apprentice printer,• said on oath, that he was wheeling his cycle upon the footpath and saw the trailer parked well out in the road. The left hand wheel of the trailer was upon the border of the white parking line 'but the other part of the traildr was between that line and the centre of the road. He saw horses but could not remember whether it was then or later that he saw the horses. He first saw the trailer shortly after six o’clock and again after 8 p.m. when Mr Jamieson’s car was there.

Witness, in cross-examination, said he could not ibe certain whether the horsese were there at 6.10 p.m. and he could not state whether the trailer was jacked up, or not at that time.

Constable J. L. Brown, of Paerba, produced a plan of the locality. The trailer was properly fitted up with lights which could be exhibited when the trailer was attached to a car but not when detatched from the car. Evidence For Defence

Defendant, who was recalled, then continued his evidence and stated that no visible damage had been done to the trailer as a result of the collision at Komata but when proceeding through Belmont road a blow out occurred. He immediately stopped and decided not to move the trailer as by so doing he would have prejudiced his chances of getting home that night with his two horses. He took the two horses out of the trailer and tied one at each end of the trailer on the kerb side of the trailer.

Legal argument followed as to the obligation upon defendant to leave the trailer lighted, Mr Foy submitting that if the trailer ,was visible within 150 feet as a result of street lights or shop lights then it was not necessary to leave the tail light of the trailer burning. There was an inconsistency between the by-law and the traffic regulations and in such case the regulation must prevail. ..The by-law -was certainly a restriction as to parking. The regulation provided that a notice had to be so placed as to indicate parking restrictions. “What about longitudinal parking?” asked the magistrate. In reply, counsel submitte<r that reasonable notice had to be given by local bodies which imposed restrictions upon parking. There was' no sufficient notice as to the restriction upon parking, which counsel submitted could be carried out anywhere upon the road. There were lights within 45 yards of where the trailer was.

The defendant took no precautions for the safety of the travelling public, submitted Constable Brown. The regulations were read to the court to the effect that where the object was visible at a distance of 150 feet then there was no legal obligation to have the object lighted Defendant, continuing his evidence, stated that after the blow out he jacked up the wheel of the trailer and took the wheel away to hqve the puncture mended. He was coming out of

the tearooms when he heard the crash. The tearooms were about 15. yards away and the lights from the tearooms made the trailer plainly visible. In addition there were street lights which showed up the trailer. To take the wheel off the trailer he needed no additional light. . “The street lights were not on when Gallagher saw your trailer at 6.10 p.m.,” said Mr Freeman. Witness replied that he was not certain whether the street lights were on or off when he first left the trailer in Belmont road. He thought the trailer was about 2 feet 6 inches from the kerbside. Doubt As To Law

In giving his decision the magistrate 'said there was some doubt as to the legal position with regard to the conflict between the by-law and the 'regulations. Civil action might follow. The lights from Jamieson’s car should have shown him a large object upon the road. It was problematical whether the street lights were sufficient to show up the object. He was not too certain about the matter and he had decided not to convict. Defendant would be fined £1 with 12/- costs for failing to have a warrant of fitness in respect of the trailer.