MOTORISTS IN COLLISION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19231, 21 January 1926, Page 12

MOTORISTS IN COLLISION.

CHARGES OF NEGLIGENCE.

QUESTION OF LIGHTING

[Br TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT.) HAMILTON, Y> r ednesday.

As a sequel to a collision which occurred ,in Naylor Street 011 the evening of November 14, Thomas Brighthouse (Mr. Johnson) was charged with failing to drh e on the left side of the road and with not having two headlights, and Henry Charles Austin (Mr. Strang) was charged with driving in a manner dangerous to the public, and driving without lights. Brighthouse pleaded guilty to not having two headlights, but not guilty to driving on the wrong side. Tho latter'plea was later altered to one of guilty. Austin denied both charges against him. Senior-Sergeant Sweeney said that a car driven by Brighthouse was travelling from Hamilton on tho wrong side of the road with only one light. Austin's car was travelling in the opposite direction on its right side, but, it was alleged, without lights, which, on a main highway, the police considered constituted driving in a mariner dangerous to the public. Geo. Hoklen, carpenter, who was at the scene of the accident soon 'after the crash, said both drivers smelled of liquor.

A constable said the accident occurred on a race day. There were five men and two women in Brighthouse's car, but not one could explain how they came to be on the wrong side of the road. There was no doubt both parties had had liquor, but not enough to justify their arrest.

Mr. Johnson said that although the by-law required two headlights in the borough, the Lights on Vehicles Act required only one. The absence of tho light had not in any way contributed to the accident.

The magistrate said he did not regard having the one light as a serious offence. He would fine Brighthouse 10s, with costs, on this charge. In regard to the other charge, defendant was fortunate that it was not the much more serious one of negligent driving. If the charge had been laid under the Motor Vehicles Act he would have endorsed defendant's license. As it was laid under the by-law he had no power to do that, but would make the fine severe. He imposed a sum of £lO.

After evidence had been called to show that the lights on Austin's car were burning prior to the accident, the magistrate stated that the evidence against him was weak. No one but a fool would drive with his lights out on such a night. Both charges were dismissed.