HALCOMBE ROAD FATALITY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 114, 10 April 1930, Page 7

HALCOMBE ROAD FATALITY.

CHARGE AT FEILDING. ANDERSON COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. (Special to “Standard.”) FEILDING, April 10. Arising out of the fatal motor-cycle accidctit which occurred on the Hal-combe-Stanway Road on February 16 last, Leonard Douglas Anderson was charged this morning at a special .t----ting of the Feilding Magistrate’s Court that, being the driver of a motor vehicle he did, on the above date, negligently drive such vehicle by omitting to oarry a light as required by the Act, thereby causing the death of Alexander Leslie Cockburri. Messrs W. Bramwell and R. Burn®, J.P.’s, presided, while Sergeant Cahill conducted the prosecution and Mr Seddon appeared for accused. Sergeant Cahill proceeded to outline the facts of the charge which was laid under Section 27 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, in conjunction with the Lights on Vehicles Act, 1915. Evidence similar to that adduced at the coronial inquiry into the fatality on March 13 last was given by Stanley Evan Marshall, a youth who was riding behind the deceased at the time of the accident, also by Thomas Raynor Vile, who was the first to reach the scene of the accident, Dr. G. Phillips, who attended the injured victims of the aocident and Constable Ruddle. At the conclusion of the taking cf evidence Mr Seddon asked that the charge be dismissed for two reasons: (1) There was not the slightest evidence that accused was the cause of the accident through not carrying a light. It might, he said, have been due to *he fact that deceased was not carrying a light or to the fact that deceased was on the wrong side of the road or to the fact that both drivers were not keeping a proper look-out. However, it was not for counsel to show that such negligence was not the cause of the accident, but for the prosecution to show that the negligence alleged was the cause of death .and in this counsel submitted the prosecution had failed. Secondly, there was the question- of the negligence of the deceased. He had no light and might have been on the wrong side of the road when the collision occurred, while the evidence showed that accused was on his correct side. . For. these reasons counsel submitted that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case and asked that the information be dismissed. Sergeant Cahill held that the prosecution had established that the accused had no lamp on his cycle when the accident occurred; also rhat .he accident took place at a time after the accused was required by law to have a light showing. There was no doubt in the speaker’s mind as to the fact that the evidence fully warranted the case being sent on to the Supreme Court for accused to stand his trial. The Bench retired for a short while to consider the evidence following which Mr Bramwell stated that the Bench was satisfied the prosecutor had made out a prima facie case'and committed accused to the Supreme Court at Palmerston North for trial. Bail was allowed; in .accused’s own -recognisance of £SO and one surety of £SO.