A RE-TRIAL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 28 November 1945, Page 5

A RE-TRIAL

ALLEGED NEGLIGENT DRIVING CAUSING DEATH EVIDENCE IN SUPREME COURT CASE FOR THE DEFENCE The re-trial of Franklin Alexander Russell on a charge of negligent driving caused the death o. Joan Quinnell Thomas, was continued in the Supreme Court at Nelson yesterday afternoon. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, presided. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr C. R. Fell, conducted the prosecution and Mr W. P. Shorland represented the accused. Continuing the evidence for the prosecution Olga Jean Oxnam, wife of David Oxnam, who was Miss Puklowski at the time of the accident, said she was also a passenger in Monopoli’s car. Her evidence was along the lines of pr ivious evidence. Cross-examined witness said that between leaving Simpson’s and the time of the accident no-one in the car went to use a telephone. Joyce Isobel Fairhall, law clerk, said she lived in Tasman street. On 22nd October, 1944 she was awakened by a crash and looked out of the window. She saw three cars, one in Tasman street, one at the corner of Halifax street and another in Halifax street. Later Monopoli came to her house to telephone. He was sober, and in uniform. Cross-examined she said at first she saw nothing but the cars, then a man passed in front of Monopoli’s lights. H- went to a garage just near the car. He was carrying what looked like a box. He placed the box on the ground under a hedge. He went from there to Monopoli’s car to a crowd of people. QUESTION OF RELEVANCY His Honour asked what was the relevance of the question. Mr Shorland said it had a bearing upon credibility of evidence. His Honour said that he would tell the jury that it had no bearing on the matter.

Witness said the box contained glass. She could hear the glass rattle.

His Honour said the court had not been told yet what had happened to the demijohn in the car.

To Mr Fell witness said that the man carrying the box was dressed in civilian clothes.

Ralph Irving Simpson, civil servant, said the party was at his house. Monopoli was perfectly sober when he left the house.

To Mr Shorland witness said he provided the refreshments at the party. He had no knowledge of any liquor being sent for at 11 o’clock, Monopoli did not drink the wines poured for him for the toasts at supper time. Witness did not see any bottled beer at any stage. Constable R. Hughes said he went to tho scene of the accident with Constable Wislang. He made a sketch plan of the scene of the accident. In his opinion both drivers were perfectly sober. Corroborative evidence was given by Constable R. B. Wislahg. He said there was an empty quart demijohn in Monopoli’s car. Monopoli was quite sober. STATEMENT AFTER ACCIDENT Constable W. S. Bacon said he was at the watchhouse when Russell called to report the accident. Russell made a statement but was not cautioned as there was nothing to caution him about. Neither of them knew the girl was dead. Witness typed out Russell’s explanation of the accident. Russell was satisfied with it and signed it. To Mr Shorland witness said the statement was obtained at 9 o’clock on the morning of the accident. The statement was given fully and freely. Russell looked slightly upset but nothing out of the ordinary. In the course of the statement accused said that he was driving at about 20 m.p.h. west along Halifax street when he met Monopoli’s car going south along Tasman street. He saw the other car only a moment before colliding. He had not taken any intoxicating liquor before this. He could not understand why he had not seen Monopoli’s car. Traffic Inspector L. R. Stringer produced a plan which he had drawn of the Tasman street-Halifax street intersection with the cars show.* according to the police sketch plan. From the positions of the cars witness deduced that Russell’s car was travelling faster than Monopoli’s. The inspector described in detail the position of skid marks and damage to both cars. That concluded the case for the Crown. EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE Opening the case for the defence Mr Shorland said that he wished to stress that as this was a criminal charge the onus of proof was on the Crown. On the evidence so far, he submitted, it was clear that there was no real allegation of speed, no allegation of being on the incorrect side of the road, so it came down to one matter —failure to avoid a vehicle on the right hand side. The question would be whether ■*hc.t was due to negligence or other causes. Counsel outlined the evidence which he intended to call and said he would ask that the jury be allowed to inspect the Morris car driven by Russell which was still in the same condition- as after the accident. He emphasised that the question was whether failure to give way to traffic on the right was due to negligence. If that failure was due to the excessive speed of the other car then there was no negligence. The first witness for the defence was Dael Lockhart West, a passenger in accused’s car on the night of the accident. He said the accused’s car was travelling slowly. He did not see the other car before the collision. It flashed in front of them and was travelling fast. He did not see an> lights. To Mr Fell witness said he left the young people’s party in Halifax street in Russell’s car. There were three passengers and the driver in the car. The Crown Prosecutor suggested that they had been driving about quite a bit after the party. Witness said he could not remember. Mr Fell put it to the witness that he must be able to remember. Witness said they left the party at about 1.30 a.m. He denied that they were more or less skylarking around in the two cars. His Honour: “If you did not see the other car till the impact how could you estimate its speed?” Witness said it literally flashed across, by which he estimated its speed. To His Honour witness said that both he and Russell were school friends but they had now left school. Frank Ashton Snowden, grader driver, said he was living at 72 Grove street in October 1944. That was one of the corner houses at the intersection of* Grove and Tasman streets. On the night in question he was awakened by the slamming of doors out in the street. H» started to get out of bed to see what the row was ; nd as he did so the car moved off. It seemed to go uj the road zX a fair speed. To the judge witness said he did not know what the car was. He next heard a smash, said witness, so he went out to see what had happened. He saw there had been a collision at the Halifax-Tasman street intersection. It was only a few seconds’ time between when the car moved off and when the crash occurred.