Motorists Before Court

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7193, 27 June 1933, Page 12

Motorists Before Court

CHARGE OF INTOXICATION DISMISSED. Mrs. E. E. Spall admitted driving a car without new number plates attached, but it was explained that the plates had been purchased some days before the end of May but had not been attached to the car. Under the circumstances defendant was not fined butordered to pay costs 10s. Iv. McDonald, charged with driving an unregistered car and also with failing to produce a driver's license, was fined 10s witli 10s costs on each information. Thos Harley, who was £BS 17s in arrears with maintenance moneys due, was sentenced to throe months’ gaol, warrant to be suspended so long as 14s 9d a week is paid. Charge Dismissed. Joseph Elliott, a carrier, defended a charge of being intoxicated while at the wheel of a motor lorry in Kangitikei street on the night of Juno 23. He was counselled by Mr. A. M. Ongley. Win. Walter Petrie said that on Friday evening lost he had driven up Bangitikei street and had stopped to drop a passenger at the coiner of Wellsbourne street. Elliott had come up .in his motor lorry and crashed into the rear of witness’s van. Elliott was intoxicated while a passenger in defendant’s lorry had been cut by being thrown into the windscreen.

To Mr. Ongley, witness said lie- had been accused by Elliott of having no tail-light and when he looked at it after the mishap, it failed to light though it had been burning before the accident.

E. L. Larsen, the passenger in Petrie’s van, said he had just alighted and saw the crash. Elliott was rather excited and thick in his speech though not actually drunk. Pctrio’s van was a cream colour and showed up quite plainly. Elliott had accused Petrie of having no tail-light, but there was one all right. Constable Busch said Elliott was In-

toxicated, unsteady on Ms feet and excited. On being arrested Elliott resisted for a time and witness had to use force to get him into a taxi. Defendant had stated that he had not been driving the lorry, but the other man (Stratton) who had been injured and taken to hospital. Constable Barrett said he saw defendant after the accident and there was no doubt he was under the influence. To Mr. Ongley: Even at 9 o'clock Elliott was intoxicated; he was sitting on the floor of the cell. Elliott would only admit to having had one beer. Senior-Sergeant Whitehousc said Elliott was very excited when brought to the watch-house, was thick in his speech, not steady on his feet and smelt of drink. “By the smell of his breath I should think he had one beer—a gallon," added the Senior-Sergeant. Mr. Ongley stated that defendant liad never had an accident before and had never come under the notice of the police though he had driven for years. The whole of the drink defendant had had that day was two long beers. After the collision Elliott had assisted in dressing the wounds of the injured passenger and carried out other arrangements in getting him to hospital. Defendant had become excited when the eontsable had tried to bustle him into a taxi before he had had time to move his lorry off the road. In evidence, Elliott said he did not see a tail-light on Petrie’s van nor did he see the van itself till he was right on top of it. After the accident he helped to bathe the cuts received by Stratton and then accompanied him to hospital in the ambulance. Defendant said he had got excited when Constable Busch arrested him. Ho admitted not being a teetotaller and on the day of the mishap he had two beers in Feilding. He had not been intoxicated and was quite able to control his lorry. Mrs. Whittaker said the injured man had been taken into her home, Elliott helping her to attend to him. She observed no smell nor any other sign of liquor about defendant. R. D. Hadiield, of St. John Ambulance service, said he went with, the Free Ambulance to attend to Stratton and, with Elliott, took him to hospital. There were no signs of drink about defendant.

Janies McNamara, Free Ambulance driver, gave similar evidence. Edward Tottman, who was at the scene of the accident, also considered Elliott was not intoxicated. Dr. D. Mitchell said he examined Elliott at 11 p.m. for signs of drink, but defendant was perfectly sober with no smell of liquor in his breath. Elliott’s recollection of the accident was perfectly clear. To Senior-Sergeant Whitehousc, witness said it would be difficult to say what Elliott’s condition was at 7.3'J p.m., but he would go so far as to say that, on his condition at 11 p.m., defendant would not be incapable of controlling his lorry at 7.90. Witness added that the smell of a man’s breath was no indication of the quantity of liquor he had imbibed. It was a wrellkiiiown physiological fact that some men after two glasses, would reek of liquor, and yet others could take a lot and hardly smell of it at all. The Magistrate said the w'hole question was not one as to whether a driver was rendered absolutely incapable of driving. The law was that a defendant was considered intoxicated if his ability to drive was even in the slightest way impaired. Dr. Mitchell said it appeared to be a question of degree of intoxication and it was a very difficult thing to tell when a man would be unlit to drive without a test on the spot. The Magistrate: That is why your seeing him 4 hours after is not much use. Giving judgment, his Worship said it was quite possible the shock of the accident affected Elliott adversely. The case seemed to be a border-line one and ho would give defendant the benefit of th doubt. The charge would be dismissed.