MOTORIST IN COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 217, 18 August 1925, Page 3

MOTORIST IN COURT

CONVICTED ON TWO CHARGES. MAGISTRATE IMPOSES FINES. The hearing of the allegations against George Raymond Donald, a Lunnytliorpe farmer, who was charged that ho was intoxicated while in cnarge of a motor car, with driving in a manner dangerous to the public, with failing to report an accident, and with tailing to stop when such accident occurred, was continued at tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon. It was alleged that a labourer named John Scramshaw, when riding his bicycle over the bridge at Whiskey Creek, was knocked over by Donald, Scrimshaw being injured about the shoulder and knee. Dr E. C. Barnett gave evidence that sudden faintness was quite possibly a symptom of the illness, allegedly suffered by defendant. Witness 1 did not know of defendant’s condition on June 13, neither had defendant consulted him since that time. James John Casey, stockbuyer, Palmerston North, stated that he saw defendant depart from the Workingmen’s Club and the departure was effected without any untoward occurrence.

In reply to Senior-Sergeant O’Grady witness said that it might be possible for a man to appear all right in a warm room and collapse when ho got out in the fresh air.

Arthur Steere, barman at tlie Workingmen’s Club, stated that Donald, to his knowledge, had two drinks on the afternoon of June 13, with two other men and both drinks were port wine and brandy. He had never seen any of these three men intoxicated.

Senior-Sergeant O’Grady; Have you ever seen a man to be perfectly all right in an hotel and then go outside and collapse? Witness: It’s quite possible. I don’t really know but 1 have heard of such cases. This closed the case for tlie defence. The Magistrate stated that he was asked to accept the suggestion that defendant had a sudden fainting lit and ran into the bridge. There was also the evidence of tho witnesses who had seen the car start and had followed it and he preferred to accept the evidence of these people. As to the sudden fainting lit, it way rather funny that it did not take defendant until he reached the bridge. Defendant did not suggest to the police when interviewed that it was a fainting fit, but an optical delusion. The manner in which Donald had started the car had suggested to the lady witness that he would be in danger when handling the car. She and her husband had seen tho car sweep over the road on the homeward journey and that was not consistent with a man not drunk, and the zig-zag fashion in which he drove up the street was not caused by a tainting lit. It did not appear to the Magistrate that it was any sudden fainting fit. The evidence was not very satisfactory as to whether Donald did see the man on tho bridge. “I do not think,” said tho Magistrate, “that even if he was under the influence of liquor he would have left the mail oil the road. I will give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether lie knew he had caused the accident. He knew he carried the bridge away, but did not know of the other. These offences are very serious,,but so far in Palmerston North there have not been convictions of this nature. Though in other towns magistrates have found it necessary to inflict imprisonment, I think a fino yvill meet this case.” Donald would he fined £5 in each of the two charges, viz., with being intoxicated while driving a car and wftli driving in a manner dangerous to the public, with costs £4 ts. The magistrate said that he would not endorse Donald’s license but intimated that if any other motorist came before him charged similarly lie would have his license endorsed for a time.