LIQUOR AND MOTORING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19748, 22 September 1927, Page 14

LIQUOR AND MOTORING.

CONVICTION OF SOLICITOR. AN UNSUCCESSFUL DEFENCE. COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT, j HAMILTON, Wednesday. A plea that accused had been the i victim of circumstances was put forward in the Magistrate's Court by Mr. A. L. Tompkins, in defence of an Auckland solicitor, John Henry Victor Mansell, who dented a charge that he was in a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor-car in Hamilton on Friday alternoon Claude Newell and Patrick Courtney, two Borough Council employees, said they saw accused stagger across Victoria Street, enter his car, and drive at a high speed to the accompaniment of grating gears up the street. Constable Gibbison said he saw accused leave the Hamilton Hotel in an intoxicated condition and take his seat in his car. Witness then arrested him. Senior-Sergeant Sweeney, Sergeant Cooper and two constables testified that accused was intoxicated when he arrived at the police station. They said he was very excited and objected to being searched. He refused to have a doctor called. Counsel submitted that accused had suffered from trench fever which affected his legs in a manner similar to muscular rheumatism. His voice was also given a thickness owing to a wound in the mouth. Accused gave evidence that he had driven from Auckland to Cambridge on Friday, and after transacting legal business there, he returned to Hamilton. He had two glasses of beer at Hamilton eariy in the day, two at Cambridge, and one glass of whisky at Hamilton on his return. He had had an attack of trench fever on Friday. The muscles of the right leg became constricted and he was unable to walk in a normal manner. A wound on the lip caused his speech to become thick and he had difficulty in articulating when he became excited. Accused said he was perfectly sober when he was arrested. A companion 01 accused, William Lewis Gungal, said that accused had had five drinks during the day and was perfectly sober when he was arrested. Witness said he himself "was sober. A garage attendant said that in his opinion accused was not intoxicated shortly before the arrest was made. A solicitor who had been called to the police station in error to see Mansell half an hour after he was arrested, said he gained the impression that accused was not intoxicated, although he was excited and angry. Another witness, who saw Mansell two and a-half hours after he was arrested, considered Mansell was not then drunk. Two brothers gave evidence as to the war disabilities from which accused suffered. The magistrate, Mr. Wyvern Wilson, said it was a singular thing that accused made no remarks about his war disabilities at the time he was arrested. Nothing was said about them until the case came into Court. In the magistrate's opinion the effects of these troubles had been greatly exaggerated. There was no doubt accused was partially intoxicated when he was arrested. The case, however, was not a bad one and he would not suspend or endorse accused's licence. Accused was fined £lO. Mr. Tompkins applied for the suppression of accused's name on the grounds that the publicity would be a greater punishment than the nature of the case warranted. The magistrate refused the application and remarked that Mansell, as a man of education and intelligence, should know better than to overindulge in liquor when in charge of a car. Because he was doing well was 110 reason why his name should be suppressed.