looter Right, Police Wrong, Says Magistrate

Northern Advocate, 15 March 1948, Page 3

looter Right, Police Wrong, Says Magistrate

KAIKOHE, Mon. (Sp.)—“This is an unusual case, in that two policemen and a police sergeant have said that, in their opinion, the man was drunk, whereas, on the other hand, we have a medical man who says 75 per cent, of the accused’s condition was due to the accident.

“I am not in a position to contradict the doctor and nor are the police. The charge accordingly is dismissed." This summing-up concluded a lengthy hearing of a charge preferred against Donald Percy Hammond, 27, carpenter, of Kaikohe, that he was found on February 16 at Kaikohe in a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor car.

Constable H. B. Allsopp, of Kaikohe, said he had seen accused at 7 p.m. standing beside a rental car on the side of the road. There were signs that the car had been overturned. He could see that accused, who had admitted he was the driver, was obviously unsteady on his feet. He leaned against the car and spoke slowly. The constable formed the opinion then that he was under the influence of liquor and definitely unfit to drive a car. TESTS BY POLICE

At the police station he was asked to walk along the edge of a concrete path raised above the grass. He bent forward to take off his hobnailed boots and fell forward on to his hands. He walked the path reasonably well. a The magistrate stopped evidence on a chart of the accident scene, drawn by the constable, saying: “We are not trying him for a driving offence, are we?”

Witness added that he had seen accused in the hotel 15 minutes before closing time. He had gone out carrying a parcel that looked like beer bottles. To the constable’s way of thinking, Hammond was then sober. Constable J. King, of' Kaikohe, also gave it as his clear opinion that accused was drunk. Another police witness, Joe Mita, spoke of the position of the car.

WHEN OLD SOLDIERS SWAY

In the witness-box, Sergeant H. Sargent, of Kaikohe, described the tests to which accused was put. He had first seen him leaning against the pigeonholes at the back of the police station office. He was swaying.

He had put a key into the office door keyhole easily. He had stumbled forward when taking oil his boots, but, in his socks, had walked the concrete path satisfactorily. Mr A. Borrows (for accused): All this swaying you talk about, sergeant —do you realise that you are now swaying yourself as you stand in the box?

Witness: No. I did not,

And I am probably unconsciously swaying as I stand here at the lawyers’ table, addressing the court,” added Mr Borrows. “Everybody sways when they are standing.” The magistrate: From an old soldier, | that is a queer thing to say, Mr Borrowsl

“There are limes when qven old soldiers sway, sir,” replied Mr Borrows, and another smile went round the courtroom. DOCTOR’S EVIDENCE

Dr M. N. Paewai, of Kaikohe, called to the stand by Mr Borrows, said he saw the patient probably half an hour after the accident. He knew him well and had often examined him before and after boxing matches. He was a highly-strung man by nature. He would tend to be excitable in moments when anything untoward happened. His voice was normally husky. By his breath and flushed face, he reasoned that Hammond had had some liquor, but he had concluded that he was not sufficiently under the influence of alcohol as to render him incapable of driving a motor-vehicle safely. The magistrate: Drunk, but not incapable—is that the answer? Dr Paewai: Not exactly, sir. He was able to relate to me facts regarding our last meeting a fortnight before, and his story would have sounded quite feasible if it had come from a driver who had had no liquor, knowing the section of road as I do where the accident took place. Mr Harley: How much of his apparent condition do you think was due to the accident? That is what it boils down to, as I see it. Witness: I should think about 75 per cent. The magistrate then made his comment, quoted earlier, and dismissed the charge.