NEGLIGENT MOTORISTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20252, 11 May 1929, Page 13

NEGLIGENT MOTORISTS.

SEQUELS TO FATALITIES. .WOMAN NOT TO DRIVE AGAIN. PAINFUL FEATURES IN CASE. COURT'S DUTY TO PUBLIC. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN COTt RESPONDENT. J CHRISTCHURCH. Friday. Two motorists found guilty of negligent driving and causing death wero sentenced by Mr. Justice Adams in the Supreme Court to day. Mrs. Isabella Mabel Stanley, who, by driving her car negligently in Belfast Street on February 21, caused the death of Stephen James Johnston, was ordered to come up for sentence when called upon within 12 months, the present licence to drive held by her was suspended, and she was disqualified from holding a driver's liccnco for the whole term of her life.

When Mrs. Stanley came up for sentence her counsel, Sir. F. D. Sargent, said he felt tho gravo responsibility of tho position. It was the first occasion in New Zealand on which a woman had been convicted of that offence. As llis Honor would have observed, Mrs. Stanley already had suffered considerable punishment inflicted by herself. Sho keenly felt the fact that she had kiiled a man, apart from the criminal aspect of the affair. Sho no doubt would bo prohibited from driving for somo lime, but ho had been authorised to say that, apart from any directions the Court might make, ib was nob her intention to drive again. Mrs. Stanley had. a grown-up family. Any punishment in tho shape of a fine would fall on her husband, who would have to faco a civil action, continued Mr. Sargent. His Honor might take into consideration the fact that Mrs. Stanley's case would be a deterrent to other women drivers. His Honor said there were painful features in the case, but it was tho Court's duty to consider all tho circumstances snd the interest of the public. Ho was satisfied from tho reports that Mrs. Stanlay was a woman of unblemished reputation, and tbafc her conduct, apart, from that most deplorable incident, had been blameless. Tho jury's strong recommendation to mercy, His Honor continued, justified him in taking a course that commended itself to his own sense of fitness und right. It was beyond question that Mrs. Stanley should not be in a position to imperil property, limbs and lives on the highway.

FINE OF £IOO IMPOSED. ; PENALTY ON WOOLBUYER. NO LICENCE FOR FIVE YEARS. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] CHRISTCHUKCH, Friday. A fine of £IOO was imposed in the Supreme Court to-day on John Eoyd Clark, who bad been found guilty of driving a car negligently near the Clock Tower early on the morning of March 31 and causing tho d'eath of Miss Maureen Doris Mitchell, a passenger in tho car He was also disqualified from driving for five years.

Counsel for accused, .Mr. C. S. Thomas, appealed for leniency. Clark was 22 years of ago and had lived in New Zealand for about four years. His record had been an excellent one. There was no mark against him The accident probably was due to fortuitous circumstances. Clark might have intended to take a certain course, his view was obscured and he did not seo the post he struck until he collided with it. When he went into the dance earlier in the evening the weather was fine and the roads were comparatively dry. Rain had begun to fall before he came out, making the roads wet and greasy. The conditions had changed. That probably led the jury to find that Clark was guilty of nob exercising sufficient care under the circumstances that night and to recommend liirn to mercy. Clark probably did not realise the extra care required. Counsel said he had heard His Honor cancel Mrs. Stanley's licence for a long time. He did not wish to be unreasonable, but urged that, as Clark was a wool buyer, it was necessary for him to drive. He had driven all over New Zealand, covering 30,000 miles. There were ?.in previous convictions against him, so his driving previously must have been satisfactory. •Mr. A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, said there was rio doubt that Clark was a respectable young man. 'There might he something in the suggestion by Mr. Thomas that the accident was due partly to the fact that Clark intended to go straight down High Street, but turned too Jate. Some of the witnesses seemed to think that in any circumstances he could not have got round the corner, as he travelled too fast. Although a death had resulted from the accident tho Court might see its wav to extend leniency. Still, some order should be made as to Clark's licence.

His Honor said it was very difficult to decide what should be done in these cases. One thing was absolutely clear, the safety of the public was the primary consideration and cases of careless driving should not be treated with undue leniency. His Honor sympathised with tiie jury's recommendation. He interpreted it as an indication that in the juiy s opinion a term of imprisonment might not be imposed fairly. At the same iimo no person guilty of negligence that caused the death of another person should be given unlimited opportunities for further driving. His Honor added: "It is to be hoped that the warning will have some effect nn persons who are negligent and forget ihc-ir duty to take care in driving. In ins Court at least no lenient view will be taken in such cases as far as the •licences are concerned."

.Mr. Thomas asked that Clark should be Riven three months in which to pay the nne. but, after consulting Clark ho said that (here was no necessity to allow time.