FOURTEEN DAYS.

Northern Advocate, 25 August 1924, Page 4

FOURTEEN DAYS.

MOTORIST SENTENCED. At the Whangarci Magistrate's Court this morning Mr E. W. Tate, S.M., imposed a sentence of fourteen days' imprisonment on a young man who admitted having been intoxicated while in charge of a motor car and having driven in a manner dangerous to the public. Charles Hawken Finlayson was charged that on July 30 he was found in an intoxicated condition in charge of a motor car, and that he was driving in a manner dangerous to the public. Accused admitted both charges. Detective De Norville stated that on the evening of July 30 accused left Whangarei in his car and eventually ran over a bank on the road to his home. On the same evening a woman was knocked down on Kaino Road and subsequently taken to the hospital. On the following morning when accused heard of the accident to the woman on Kamo Road he went to the police station and admitted that he had gone up the road in an intoxicated condition the previous evening.

Detective De ISTorville said he need hardly impress the necessity of inflicting some penalty for breaches of this kind. Accused had two previous convictions against him, one in 1920 for exceeding the speed limit and the other for failing to keep on the proper side of the street. On another occasion he had driven without lights

— o t Mr H. D. Harrison, counsel for accused said that it would be idle to pretend that the charge was not a serious one, but he urged that it might be met by the infliction of a monetary penalty rather than imprisonment. This was virtually the first serious charge against accused, as the previous cliarges had not been of a serious nature. Unfortunately on this occasion accused had been under the influence of liquor. He was really the victim of a social system which permitted a man to imbibe liquor and afterwards punished him for doing so. The action of accused since the accident showed that there were none of the elements of a criminal in him. The morning after the accident, though unaware that he was responsible for it, he came to the conclusion that probably he was. What did he do then? He did not hide. He did not try to evade detection. He went to the police station and made a frank statement of all he had done the previous evening. He then visited the woman who had been injured and said to her that everything that could be made good would be done. He would ask his Worship to take into consideration the good character of accused. To send him to gaol would be a more serious penalty than was warranted under the circumstances. James Neil McCarroll, called by Mr Harrison, said that he had known accused from boyhood , . He had come under his notice particularly at the front. Accused was one of the first to leave the Whangarei district on active service, going on August 10, 1914. He was then very young and really not old enough to go away. He made good at the front and proved himself a very good man there. He started as a private and went through every noncommissioned rank but one and earned his commission as second lieutenant in the field. At the front he showed daring and pluck and was a good example to his associates. Witness had always found him, both at the front and at home in New Zealand, absolutely reliable and a man who could be depended upon to keep a promise.

Detective De Norville asked Colonel McCarroll whether he considered that because accused had done good service at the front he was entitled to career round the country in a motor ear.

Colonel McCarroU said that he did not. He admitted that offences must be dealt with, but he had spoken of accused's good character.

Hugh Wentworth Crawford, called by Mr Harrison, stated that he had known accused for a number of years and regarded him as one of the finest characters he had met for manliness and straightforwardness. He was a man who would not willingly injure anyone, and his manly character was evidenced by the manner in which ho came forward to the police and assumed responsibility for the Occident to the woman on Karno Road. It was still further evidenced by his offer to make full restitution to the woman concerned. Witness regarded him as a man in whose word absolute reliance could bo placed and one who would never shirk a responsibility.

Mr Harrison stated that first offenders were usually dealt with very liberally and urged the infliction of a fine as a fitting penalty for the offence.

The .Magistrate said that the maximum penalty for offences of this kind was :i fine of £10 or imprisonment up to three months. This offence was really not a nominal one because it involved the possibility of serious con.sequence. There was, of course, no actual proof that the accident was caused by accused. To his mind a fine was inadequate, and probation seemed to him out of the question. The only thing left was imprisonment. Accused had disregarded the law and there had been the risk of serious accident in driving, therefore he did not think it reasonable -to give him probation. He would have to eliminate probation and fine. There were features about the case which made it serious, hii^jiijjmia^^lii^Wiorpjva^jnilififliilin^