MOTORISTS PUNISHED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18943, 14 February 1925, Page 10

MOTORISTS PUNISHED.

FINES FOR MANSLAUGHTER. PENALTIES OF £l5O AND £SO. NEGLIGENCE ON THE ROADS. JUDGE'S PLAIN WARNING. Two prisoners who had been found guilty of manslaughter following upon motor-car accidents, were brought before Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court yesterday for sentence. In each case a fine was imposed. His Honor said: "I want it to be recognised that, if these accidents continue and the juries find that persons have been guilty of negligence, I do not think that should always bo inflicted. I think it will be necessary to take some stronger measures unless more care is shown in the handling of motor-cars on the roads. ■ A fine of £l5O was imposed on William Pitman, found guilty in respect of the death of Elsie Lilian Roberts, who was knocked down in Upper Queen Street on November 3. Mr. Sellar, in making a strong plea for leniency, said there were a number of people who were willing to speak on prisoner's behalf. He was a, highly sensitive man, and he had been very severely punished already by anxiety and worry over the case. The circumstances of the accident were so difficult that it took the jury four and a. half hours to come to a conclusion. There was no criminal intent. Under section 27 of the Motor Vehicles Act of last year, a fine not exceeding £SOO was permitted, and it seemed that, in framing that section, the Legislature recognised that there would be cases of this kind, which would be met by a fine. In Pitman's case all the ele monts of punishment would be satisfied by a fine. After the accident prisoner did his best for the unfortunate woman, calling regularly at the hospital. Very possibly he would have certain difficulties and liabilities to meet in connection with (he Case, and that, he submitted, was a matter the Judge might reasonably take into consideration. The jury had added a very strong recommendation to mercy. The accident occurred in a moment, with no intent to injure anybody. A fine would be in accordance with public opinion. An Unfortunate Position. His Honor: Must the Court be regulated by public opinion ? Counsel: I submit that public opinion is of some weight and very often a correct opinion. His Honor admitted he was placed in a very unfortunate position in dealing with the case. One c.ould not help feeling that to a man in prisoner's position the punishment he had already received through knowing he had been the cause of the young woman's death was very serious. His difficulty was in regard to giving a warning to others. There was not the slightest doubt that hundreds of motor-cars were driven about Auckland with the utmost carelessness, and accidents were missed by fractions of an inch. In his opinion, prisoner came down the hill, not at an excessive speed, probably at 18 to 20 miles an hour, and deliberately took the risk of trying to get a "flying start" when the tram started. He ought to have known there was a risk. Not Satisfied With Evidence. The Judge said he was not a bit satisfied with the evidence called for the dofence. He thought it tailed one's credulity to the highest extent to believe that in the two trnmcars there were five or six personal friends who were able to speak as to the speed prisoner was going down hill and three weeks after to state the exact position of the vehicles as they saw it after the accident. "I simply do not believe it," he said., At the same time he was very much impressed by what counsel had said. It was hard to have to imprison a man for an offence which, had he thought it would have happened, he would never have ventured on. If he were a poor man he could not punish him by a fine, and the question was whether that should affect him at all. He felt in a very considerable difficulty about it, and, although perhaps he was not doing his duty, lie would let him off with a fine of £l5O. Prisoner would also havb to pay £26 4s, costs of the prosecution. One week would be allowed fcr payment of fine and costs, in default three month's imprisonment; TRAM MOTOEMAN'S DEATH, INEXPERIENCE OF CAR DRIVER. In the case of George Denton, found guilty of " negligent driving, caused by inexperience in handling his motor-car," thereby causing the death of William Campbell, a tramway motorman, His Honor imposed a fine of £SO. The accident took place on November 29, on the Great South Road. Mr. Northcroft submitted there were very substantial circumstances which minimised the gravity of prisoner's conduct. He had not been shown in any sense to be an irresponsible reckless larrikin on the roads. The jury had indicated that prisoner's fault, lay in his error of judgment, arising out of his inexperience with motors, more than in a deliberate intention to take unnecessary risks. He was a working man, only slowly making his way to prosperity. He had been engaged in his trade as a builder, in partnership. He, was now faced with a claim for £2OOO on the suit of the widow of Campbell. Counsel appealed for mercy and asked that a. fine bo inflicted. His Honor said he did not look on Denton's case as being as serious as Pitman's. The jury, he thought, were quite right in finding that the accident was due more to inexperience than to recklessness. Prisoner, apparently, did not appreciate. the difficulty he would have in controlling his car in an emergency. He ordered him to pay £l9 12s Bd, costs of the prosecution, the fine of £SO and the costs to bo paid within one mohtli, in , default one month's imprisonment.