INTOXICATED MOTORIST

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19730, 1 September 1927, Page 10

INTOXICATED MOTORIST

FINE OF TWENTY POUNDS. COLLISION IN PARK ROAD. CANCELLATION OF LICENCE. A fine of £2O was imposed in the Police Court yesterday on Harold Stanley Hall (Mr. Giesen), charged with being intoxicated while in charge of a motor-cai and with dangerous driving. Senior-Sergeant Edwards said accused was the driver of a motor-car which collided with another car at the intersection of Carlton Gore Road and Park Road on the evening of June 13. As the result of an examination he was found to be under the influence of liquor. - Raymond Douglas Carder said he was driving his car toward the intersection at a speed of 10 or 12 miles an hour. He slowed down considerably at the intersection, and when over to the extreme right of the crossing he was struck by another vehicle, his car being knocked round at right angles. The other car seemed suddenly to loom up near him and strike him. He considered it was travelling at a very excessive speed He was dazed for a few minutes and he then heard some one say to accused: "'Man, you are drunk." Accused was certainly under the influence of liquor, as he had smelt the liquor on him. It was not very dark at the time. Speed Considered Unsafe. John Alexander, who was in a car hind accused, said accused's car had been travelling at an "unsafely fast ' speed. He considered accused was under the influence of liquor,, although not actually drunk. Accused, in evidence, said he was not travelling very fast when he approached the intersection. He could not have been doing so, for he pulled up quickly. Ha had had only one drink during the day—at 10 30 a.m. The Senior Sergeant: How do you account for the smell of liquor ?—Witness: I can only suggest it was because I had no mid-day meal. Several witnesses gave evidence as to accused's movements on the day. Mr. Giesen said that although it was a question of one set of statements against another, he wa:> positive that accused was not intoxicated. If he had been travelling fast he would have crumpled up the other car. Neither man was responsible for the accident, accused really having the right of way. Defence Not Accepted. "As is usual in these cases there is a conflict of opinion," said the magistrate, Mr. McKean. "Fortunately, the police have called witnesses upon whose veracity I can rely. From accused's own actions I have to assume that he was drunk or he was a fool. No xnan in his sober senses would have approached the corner at the •pace he did. People upon whose veracity 1 can rely say he smelt of liquor. I do not believe ho confined himself to one drink during the day."

A fine of £j2o was imposed on the charge of intoxication. The charge of dangerocts driving was withdrawn. The magistrate cancelled accused's driving licence. On a further charge of negligent driving in Queen Street on Ap r il 8, defendant was fined £2, with costs.