ERRING MOTORIST

North Otago Times, Volume CIII, Issue 13655, 24 August 1916, Page 2

ERRING MOTORIST

■', ■■ ' - '— ■■ i CHARGED WITH DANGEROUS DRIVING. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr J, E. Bartholomew, S.M., Consignor John. Mackay was charged with driving a motor car on a public highway at Enfield on August 13th, in a manner dangerous to the public safety. Mr Hjorring' appeared for the defendant,'and Senior-Sergeant Stagpoole.appeared for the police. Defendant pleaded "Not guilty," Senior-Sergeant Stagpoole outlined the case, and said the charge was laid under, section 0 of the Motor Regulations Act, 1908, Mr Ongley and° his family, with friends, were returning from Enfield on Sunday, 13th August, by car, and'defendant passed-at a rate of not less than thirty miles an hour. The parties in a gig and in Mr Ongley's car bawdy had time to get off the road, and it was by the narrowest of margins an accident was averted. Leslie Priest, farmer, Elderslie, said he remembered that when he was returning to his home in the afternoon he saw two cars coming towards him, He was in his gig, and pulled to the side, of the road up against a bank. Witness saw the two ears about thirty, chains away. Mr Ongley turned off on the other side of the grass, whilst the car behind came', iir between, travelling at thirty miles an, hour. No horn was sounded, The car passed witW a few. inches. Witness thought the car coming behind hit Mr Ongley's ear. . Cross-examined by Mr Hjorring, witness' said he arrived at the speed by the statement made by Mr Ongley that he (Mr Ongley) was travelling at from fifteen to twenty miles per hour. Defendant could have passed Mr Ongley's car easily had witness ■not been there. Defendant was a chain or two behind Mr Ongley. The road was suited for two, not three, to pass! Eric Grave said he was driving with Mr Ongley on the day mentioned. They passed defendant near Elderslie Church. Mr Priost pulled to the side of the road and Mr Ongley ran on to the grass, Defendant's car ran first towards the gig and then swerved towards Mr Ongley, He saw the ear coming ]OO yards behind, It passed without warning at thirty miles an hour. The speed was not slackened, and the car missed them by inches. There was no room for three vehicles to pass. Cross-examined by Mr Hjorring: He did not watch the car for a long time. He could not say that defendant was travelling at thirty miles an hour at dhat time. It was when he passed, Defendant's ear could have pas?c;l easily if the gig had not been on the road. Mr Ongley was travelling slowly, To the. Bench: There was nothing to hide the view of the gig, It was a straight road. ~ Mr Ongley, Oamaru, said he was returning from Windsor, and met Mr Priest about one mile and a half this side of Enfield. Mr Priest was in a gig, | and travelling in the opposite direction. He seemed alarmed, and endeavoured to get to the side of the road, Witness was told a car was coming behind, so he ran his ear to the side. When it J caught up to him the oncoming car (swerved in without warning, It was travelling at a fast rate, and cleared witness's,ear by only a foot. Witness was travelling between fifteen and twenty miles an hour, ■ Cross-examined by Air Hjorring:' ! There was no horn 'sounded. Witness ' was listening for it. He would contradict defendant's statement that he blew his horn. The roads were dry ex- I eept at low-lying places. The turf at the side was soft. It was the height of madness to pass through as the position stood. There was nothing unreasonable in the statement that defendant did not see the gig. Any man .who saw the gig 'would not have acted as defendant had. To the Magistrate: There was no- , thing to obscure the view of the gig. To Senior-Sergeant Stagpoole: Any men who could see fifty yards must have seen the gig. M, Hannou, delttist, Oamaru, said he was in the car with Mr Ongley. He knew defendant's car was coming behind. No horn was heard, Mr Priest pulled to tlie side about thirty yards from witness, When parallel with the gig Mr Ongley ran his car to the side of the road to allow the car to pass, Defendant was travelling over twenty miles an hour, He thought that Mr Ongley's car would .be capsized by the collision with defendant's car. Cross-examined by Mr Hjorring: Defendant's act would be a reckless one if he saw the gig, Mr Hjorring, in his opening address, said that the facts of the case were hardly disputed. Defendant was returning from Kurow, and when at the top of the Hill near the church saw a car in front of him going down the hill. He gathered speed, and blew the horn, but no notice was taken. The road was "greasy," The passengers in the front car turned when the horn was blown, but no move was made, When a decent piece of road was reached defendant tried to pass in the .usual way, without any knowledge of the gig being "there. As all the witnesses had pointed out, it was a reckless act. This placed a. different complexion on the matter. When defendant realised the position, he saw that he would either skjd into Mr Ongley 's car or collide with the gig. He accordingly opened up his engine and got through between the vehicles, These circumstances arose out of pure accident, and defendant was passing in the usual way. John Mackay, in evidence, said he blew his hom going down the road, and the passengers in the front car turned round. He blew again, but there was no change in the course of the front car. A corner was reached, and the horn was blown again, The front car continued in the middle, of the road. Witness was afraid of leaving the road, as the turf was soft, He saw a levcf patch ami-at-tempted to pass, Not until lie got right up to the other car did it move off the ' road. With two wheels on the road and ■ two on the turf he was afraid to apply > the brakes, Noticing an opening he ! made for it, and then he saw the gig, ' He passed within a foot of Mr Ongley, ' but he did not know how close he was ' to the gig. He had an idea that he saw ' a gig along the road, Mr Ongley's car I was not off the road, but just a little to ' one side, Witness was travelling from < eighteen to twenty miles an hour, Had ' he known the gig was where it was he ' would not. have thought of passing, To the Magistrate: The car in front ' had no hood, He did iiol anticipate ! meeting the gig so soon. ' J The Magistrate said defendant was ' clearly in the wrong, He had attempt- ' ed to pass, and an accident was narrow- ' ly averted, The road was level and ( there was nothing to prevent defendant ' from seejug the gig. Had he been keeping a proper look-out the gig must ! have been seen, His mind was so occu- ' pied in watching the car in front that a ' proper look-out was neglected, It was ' almost impossible not to see the gig. I There had been negligence in driving, ! and it was fortunate that a serious acei- ' dent did not occur, With regard to the ( penalty, no accident had resulted, but ' the persons involved were placed in risk ' of accident, Defendant was accordingly, fined £3, ' with costs 26/-. ' ( '