SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 281, 26 October 1934, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

ALLEGED NEGLIGENT DRIVING. CASE FOR. THE DEFENCE. Evidence for the defence was heard when the hearing was resumed, before His Honour Mr Justice Blair in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North to-day, of the case in which Edward Saville Lyall Esdaile was charged with' negligently driving a motor car and thereby causing the death of Miss Katherine Hardman, as the outcome of a collision which occurred on July 12 last at the intersection of Rangitikei and Featherston Streets. Mr H. It. Cooper (Crown solicitor) conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr A. M. Ongley appeared for accused. Entering the box to give evidence, accused stated that on July 12 last lie was driving a sedan car up Rangitikei Street just before 9 a.m. The vehicle was blue, with black mudguards, and equipped with a nickelplated bumper. He had had trouble with the distributor of the engine and the car was faltering as it proceeded up the street. He had proceeded about 150 yards and when opposite a hide and skin store, the engine cut out, causing the car almost to stall. He thrust tlio gear lever from first position to second to gain sufficient speed to proceed. After about another 15 yards he changed to top gear again. When just on the city side of the fruiterer’s shop he regulated the choke and in doing so automatically read the speed of 23 to 25 miles an hour on the speedometer. This speed was not changed at all. On coming to the intersection lie looked to his right under the verandah posts of a shop and saw nothing. He then looked to the left and saw three boys, two on one cycle and another riding singly. He paid particular attention to them, and, being satisfied that he Could cross the intersection, looked straight ahead. By that time his car was -on the correct side, almost in the centre of the intersection. Looking to the front, he saw out of the corner of his eye, on the right, coming straight at him without any warning, a car with what appeared to be two white wheels and a black bonnet. He realised that it was impossible to avert a collision, and with a view to taking the blow behind where he was sitting, he pressed the accelerator hard down and wrenched the wheel hard to the left, after which he was knocked unconscious. Unless it was forced for a very considerable distance his car in its condition of that morning could not attain 40 miles an hour, and he doubted if even then. No part of his car struck the other, which hit his just behind the support between the two doors on the right. The two wheels cut through the running board of his car, damaging the rear door and the panels on that side. There was no mark at all on his car’s right-hand front mudguard, wheel or bumper.

Subsequently, witness added, Hardman saw him at the hospital, and accused asked him if he considered he (Esdaile) was to blame for the accident. Hardman replied that he did not think so, as he could not see Esda.ile. Accused personally volunteered that he could not blame Hardman, as he had not see'll him either. It was more or less mutually agreed that both had been sufficiently punished. About a month later accused overtook Hardman when the latter was cycling along Rangitikei Street. Accused surmised that he had changed his attitude since he had seen him previously. He never at any time told Hardman he had been travelling at 33 to 35 miles an hour, or that he had been going a bit too fast. Accused never considered he ,ha.d done s.o. Cross-examined, accused stated that he had been driving for about 12 years. Counsel: During the last five years you have had about seven accidents which have resulted’ in claims on the insurance over your car?—l do not think it was as many as that. It is not unreasonable, on the law of averages, for a business man driving a car as frequently as I am, for some accidents to occur.

Counsel recalled six different mishaps ajid asked if they were all the result of bad luck or the other man’s fault.

Accused said he drove about sixty miles daily and his average of mishaps was not any worse than, if as great as that of other drivers doing the same mileage. Further examined concerning the collision at the intersection of Rangitikei and Featherston Streets, accused said it was very difficult to secure a view of the latter street under the verandah of the corner shop. He distinctly remembered looking in that direction. Either at the actual moment of impact or a split second before, he wrenched the steering wheel to the left on the full lock. He had never been previously charged with negligent driving or speeding. He considered that he had discharged his obligation to give way to traffic from the right on this occasion, as he had almost passed over the centre of the intersection. OTHER WITNESSES. Evidence was given by Muriel Esdaile, the wife of accused, that on the morning of the accident she was outside the Public Hospital when she saw a man and asked him if he was involved in the accident. He said he was the driver of the other car and liis sister was badly hurt. Witness asked him how it had happened, and he replied “I don’t know.'l hit him.” Witness was present at the private hospital next day when Hardman saw her husband. Hardman there said he did not blame accused at all for the accident, because he did not see him. A. Kingston, insurance assessor and adjuster, of Feilding, testified that on the day of the accident he examined both the cars involved in the collision. He described the condition of both cars and said he had formed the opinion that when the collision took place Hardman’s car collided with Esdaile’s at about the post between the two doors on the offside, and at an angle of about 10 degrees. There was no damage to the front of Esdaile’s car. There would have been a mark on the bumper of his car if it had struck the other.

Cross-examined, witness said he could not agree that the cars just met and hit each other as they converged. He did not know whether or not his insurance company was pa.ying for the damage to Hardman’s car. Walter Jenkins, of Palmerston North, foreman at Messrs Fowler and Porter’s motor garage, testified that prior to the collision he had attended to accused’s car for petrol blockage on the morning of the accident, but the work was incomplete. After the collision he went to the scene of the accident and found Esdaile’s car out of gear. He drove it back, but the engine was very sluggish, and in that state would not do more than 40 miles an hour, if it would do that. The car had been damaged all about the middle of the body. There were no marks on the front of it.

Louis Mair Justice, motor engineer, gave evidence that he examined accused’s car after the collision. There was no damage to the front of the vehicle. Had the bumper of this car broken the wheel of that on Hardman’s the bumper and mudguard on accused’s car would have been damaged. This concluded the evidence, and proceedings were then adjourned for lunch.