INTOXICATED MOTORIST.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 276, 26 October 1925, Page 6

INTOXICATED MOTORIST.

AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPEAL.

COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION

The question of what constitutes the offence of being in charge of a motor car while drunk was argued in the Supreme Court at Auckland before Mr Justice Herdman.

Frederick Weiss appealed against a conviction by Mr W. It. McKean, S.M., for being in charge of a motor ear at Onehunga while in a state of intoxication.

Mr Paterson, for the Crown, said that at 5.45 p.m. on July 10 two constables saw Weiss alongside a car outside the Terminus Hotel at Onehunga. It was dark at the time and there were no lights on the car. The constables told Weiss to turn on his lights. Subsequently Mrs Weiss and Mr Rosy entered the front seat of the car, Weiss going into the back seat. Ross drove the car away. Shortly afterwards the constable accosted Ross in the car and found he had no license to drive. . Weiss was then obviously under the influence of liquor. The car was driven into another street, where Weiss withdrew the key from the switchboard and ordered Ross out of the car. Ross went to telephone for the police. Weiss started the engine hut was unable to get the car to move. The hand-brako of the car had been broken. The appeal was made on the ground that there was no proof that Weiss was intoxicated, that he was not in charge of tho car and that the conviction was against tho weight ofevidence. Constable Johansen, cross-examined, admitted that he had previously given evidence against Weiss in a by-law case in which the prosecution failed. Constable Poll said Weiss’s car had been standing in front of the hotel lor about two hours. He knew Weiss was under tho influence of liquor and had decided to arrest him if he drove tho caraway. . Evidence was given by William Herbert Ross that he was requested by Mrs Weiss to drive the car as Weiss was under the influence of liquor. Witness, supported tho police evidence as to what transpired subsequently. Weiss, in evidence, said that on July 10 ho drank four “half-handles” ot beer. He was quite capable of driving the car. His wife got Mr Ross to drive tho car as she wished to go home and witness desired to stay somo time longer. Witness came out ot the hotel just as Ross was driving away and got into the back of the ear. It was contended by Mr Richmond that Weiss was not in charge of the motor-ear at any timo after leaving the hotel. That was the only period, lie submitted, during which the offence alleged against Weiss could have been committed. A man could be said to be in crahge of a ear only if he had Ins hands on the wheel. If a man drove his car to a parking area, left it theie and went away and got drunk he could not be held to bo drunk in cliaige ° f His Honour said that there was ample evidence that Weiss was drunk. The question was '"bethel he n.s drunk when in charge ot tho lai. t was established that it a man became intoxicated and sat in the dinei ■ scat of a motor-car he was_gmlty of the offence charged against "ciss. he came out of an hotel drunk and stood beside the car ho must also _bo held to lio in charge ot the cai . The magistrate’s decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed, with To os costs and witnesses’ expenses.