ACCIDENT SEQUEL

Northern Advocate, 6 February 1934, Page 3

ACCIDENT SEQUEL

1 TWO MEN CHARGED ONE CASE DISMISSED MOTOR CYCLIST FINED j An accident in Mill Road on Or-toll or 1 24, 1044, had its sequel in the Magis- , Date's Court yesterday afternoon, j when two men were brought before ; Mr 0. N. Morris, S.M., charged with ; breaches of the regulations, j A plea of guilty was entered by j Cecil Francis Saul, who was accused !of operating a motor cycle in Mill | Road on October 24, 1944, carrying a 'pillion passenger when the cycle was j not fitted with footrests for the use of j such passenger. | Senior-Sergeant Powell stated the ; tacts of the case, which resulted in an I accident. j Saul said he was picked up by the | motor cyclist, but as he was more exjperienced, he took control. j J A (me of £1 and costs 10/- was in- ‘ dieted. | The second defendant was Percy Reynolds, who answered a charge of tailing to maintain his position to the j left of the centre line of Mill Road J until he had entered the area of the ! intersection of Drummond Street and Ali 11 Road. The first witness called, Cecil Fran- i cis Saul, stated that he was riding a j motor cycle from the end of Mill Road | towards town on October 24, with ! Harry Franklin on the pillion seat. ! Near Drummond Street he noticed a car coming up Mill Road from town, but did not sec any direction signs, or hear a horn. Franklin spoke to him and he looked round. When he recovered, the car was right in front of him. He swerved behind it and went on. No impact occurred, and he did not know Franklin was off till he spoke further down the road a.nd received no answer. Saul said he was tra- ' elling half-way between the centre of the road and the kerb at betw r een 20 and 25 miles per hour. When he first saw the car it was well on its correct side and travelling at a slower speed than, the cycle, which was undamaged. Franklin was injured and removed to hospital. In answer to counsel for the defendant, Saul stated that on the way down Mill Road, Franklin was explaining features of the cycle, and mentioned a defect in the throttle. If he had maintained his'straight course he would have struck Reynolds’ car in the centre. Saul further stated that he returned to Franklin, who then said he (Saul) was travelling too fast. He was not aware that Franklin was off till he reached Deveron Street. There w r as a carrier, but no footrests on the cycle, which' he always had under control. The next witness was Harry Franklin, the victim of the accident, who estimated the speed of the motor cycle at 20-25 miles per hour. He could not remember Saul changing his speed, but saw the car coming up on its correct side of Mill Road. He did not think defendant blew his horn or gave anv direction sign. He watched his course (which was indicated on a J chart). Franklin said his falling off was due to the sudden swerve. The defendant, Reynolds, in evidence, said he had been driving 25 and had never had a collision or been before the court. He said that as he went to turn into Drummond Street on the day of the accident, he saw the J motor cycle 40 yards away. Defendant said he was travelling at 15 m.p.h., but slowed down towards the corner. The cycle was going at a dangerous speed ( and, in order to avert a collision, he ( swung his car round on the right side. If the cycle had not been there he > would have continued on the left. He j estimated the cycle’s speed at 40 m.p.h. 1 The magistrate said it was evident ( that defendant had gone on his wrong side to avert a serious accident. Frank- \ lin’s memory could not be deemed 1 clear, owing to concussion, and as Saul did not see the course of the car, the charge would be dismissed.