Heavy Fine But License Not Cancelled

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 280, 27 November 1945, Page 4

Heavy Fine But License Not Cancelled

Intoxicated in Charge Of Car Prosecution

“There is a definite injunction in the Act that licenses will be cancelled in all cases in which a conviction is entered, and power to refrain from doing so exists only in exceptional circumstances. I think those circumstances arc present in this case,” declared Mr. C. C. Marsack, S.M., in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday when indicating that lie would not cancel the driving license of Gerald Phil Raymond Thomas, aged 32 years, a stock agent, of 36 Linton Street, who was found guilty of being intoxicated in charge of a motor vehicle.

The charge arose out or au accident on tho Napier Road, in the vicinity of the gasw'orks, on the evening of November 13, when a car drivep. by Thomas was involved in a collision with two young women on The two young women were admitted to the Palmerston North Hospital in a serious condition. Represented by Mr. A. M. Ongley, the accused pleaded not guilty. ►Senior Sergeant R. Audley prosecuted. After the hearing of lengthy evidence, the Magistrate entered a conviction against Thomas and imposed a fine of £35 and costs.

“I am taking into consideration the good record of tho accused, particularly overseas,” remarked the Magistrate, when giving judgment. It had been mentioned in tho course of evidence that Thomas had risen from the rank of trooper to major, and that he had been officer commanding tho protective troops of the G.0.C., Lt.-Geu. B. C. Freyberg, V.O. 4 ‘ He should be entitled to draw ou the credit lie has established by his previous irreproachable conduct, but I must emphasise that it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that I will consider not cancelling the driver's license in these cases.”

Constable G. Chapman said that he visited the scene of the accident, arriving just as the ambulance was leaving with the two injured girls. He saw tlie badly-damaged women’s bicycles. A cycle lamp was lying beside tho road. Tho car was facing Palmerston North and was practically in the centre of the road, with the head turned Blightly to tho driver's correct side of the road. He saw the accused standing beside the car, and, in reply to a question Thomas admitted that he was the driver of the car. Accused's breath smelled exceptionally strong of intoxicating liquor, and his gait was unsteady. Without hesitation, said Constable Chapman, he came to the conclusion that Thomas was in an intoxicated condition and not fit to be in charge of a motor vehicle. He drove accused to the police station, arriving at about 8.30 p.m. Dr. Ward was immediately summoned.

Evidence of having given the accused sobriety tests was given by Dr. F. G. Ward, who submitted his repoft made out at the time of the examination. After the tests he had come to the conclusion that Thomas was not in a fit state to drive a motor vehicle.

Evidence for the prosecution was also given by Constables J. G. Gunn, B. Arnold and C. W. Haresuape, after which Senior Sergeant Audley entered the box.

Mr. Ongley intimated that the defence would be a denial of the police allegations in regard to Thomas' state of sobriety.

Mr. D. M. Mitchell, for the defence, outlined au examination he had made of the accused at about 10 p.m. ou the night of the accident. Without hesitation, said the witness, lie would say that Thomas was perfectly sober. His examination took between ten and fifteen minutes. He could not exclude the possibility of Thomas having been intoxicated two hours previously, but it was unique in his experience for a man to recover in such a short time. Thomas did not smell of intoxicating liquor. J. L. Griffiths, a bank clerk, of Feilding, and a former major in the Middle East Forces, said accused was associated with him overseas. Thomas had risen to tho rank of major from tlie ranks. Their association extended from 1940 to the present day. His knowledge of Thomas had shown that the accused was a very moderate drinker. His general conduct had always been excellent, as was shown by the important post he had held as officer commanding the G.O.C.'s protective troop.

Accused, himself, gave evidence and said that overseas he had risen from the rank of trooper to that of major. He had been employed by Abraham and Williams since 1929. On November 13 he went to Pahiatua, driving one of the firm's cars, to attend a stock sale. He left the sale at 4.30 in company with J. and D. McDonald and G. E. MeKqpman. They had no drinks at Pahiatua. They stopped at Woodville on the way home and had two or three whiskies. They had stopped at the request of J. McDonald who wanted to have a haircut. They stopped again at Ashhurst where they had two small beers and later luid one small beer. He left at about 7.30 with Mc-Keeman for Palmerston North, and was involved in an accident near the gasworks, nc came round a corner on his correct side and seav two cyclists approaching. The cyclists were near the centre of the road on their correct side, but began to veer over to their wrong side. Accused said he went on to his wrong side to avoid them, when one of the girls decided to return to her correct side. He applied his brakes and tried to go between them. He was unable to do this and the collision followed. In his opinion he had not had sufficient drink to render him unfit to drive a motor vehicle.

Corroborative evidence was given by J. H. McDonald, farmer, of Raumai, and G. E. McKeeman, drover and dealer, of Main Street.

S. R. Thomson, mannger of Abraham and Williams, said accused had been employed by his firm for 16 years. Since his return from five years' overseas service, Thomas was in charge of the whole commission department and was assistant manager. It was most essential that .Thomas should drive a motor vehicle, particularly during the next six months which was the company’s busy season. Witness had never seen tho accused the worso for liquor. Thomas was in the best position the company could offer him. He had seen Thomas after 10 p.m. on the night of the accident, and, in his opinion, he was quite sober, although very upset. “Tho first question for the court to consider is the precise degree of intoxication in order that a conviction might be justified,” stated the Magistrate, who quoted authorities on this point. “It is not necessary that accused should bo so intoxicated that he could be arrested as drunk. The evidence has clearly shown that the accused had

substantial amounts of liquor. On his own admissions lie had whiskies and beer.”

Tho police witnesses had been unanimous in their opinion that the accused Avas so intoxicated as to be unfit to drive a car. Dr. Ward had stated that the accused was intoxicated. There had been some suggestion that the accused had made sonic progress towards sobriety after the accident, and that had been borne out by Mr. Mitchell's opinions. The court Avas concerned Avith the state of sobriety of the accused at the time of tho accident.

“I am satisfied that at 8 p.m. the accused's mental faculties were so affected by alcohol as to make him less fit to drive a motor car than he might be expected to be by the standards,” said the magistrate, indicating his intention of entering a conviction.

“In view of the accused’s present occupation, cancellation of his license would seriously interfere with hia livelihood,” said Mr. Ongley, who submitted that Thomas' past records, both civil and military, might be taken into consideration by the court.

The magistrate then gave his decision on this point with the remarks quoted above.