DANGEROUS DRIVING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20642, 14 August 1930, Page 15

DANGEROUS DRIVING.

MOTORIST FINED £5.

MAJOR CHARGE DISMISSED. " BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT." Convicted on a charge of dangerous driving. Arthur James Good, builder and company director, was fined £5 and costs by Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday. On another charge of being intoxicated while driving a motorcar the accused was given the benefit of a doubt, and discharged. Sub-Inspector Shanahan said that at about 5.15 p.m. on June 11 Good was driving his car down Epsom Avenue at a speed of approximately 35 miles an hour. He swerved across the road on to his wrong side and collided with a lorry which was being backed into the. gateway of a private residence. r l lie skid marks made by the car measured 90 feet. The driver of the lorry, A. M. Cibson, said that! at the time of the accident he was in the act of backing his vehicle across the footpath, the back wheels being in the gutter. Witness saw Good's car coming down the road, which was clear of traffic, at a very fast speed. Suddenly tho car swerved on to its wrong side and crashed into the front of the lorry. Judging from his speech and walk tho driver of the car was intoxicated. He refused to givo his nanio and declined to wait until the arrival of the police. There was another man in the car who appeared to be helplessly drunk. Evidence of Other Witnesses. William F. Taylor, who was with Mr. Gibson, gave corroborative evidence. He said he had no doubt whatever that the accused was drunk. Good had considerable difficulty in restarting his car. Two other witnesses gave similar evidence, but differed on the question of the road being quite clear. One stated that there was a stationary van a little further up the road. However, it caused no obstruction. Air. Allan Moody, who appeared for the accused, said ho had known his client, who was not a man addicted to drink, for many years. " 1 know of no reason why witnesses should say I was drunk," said Good. I was working all day and only had one or two drinks. Coming down Epsom Avenue a covered-in van on my side of the road caused me to swerve in order to avoid a collision. My companion and 1 were certainly sober." Question by Magistrate. The Magistrate: How on earth do you account for hitting the lorry when you had practically the whole road to yourself? James A. Stewart, surveyor, said he had ono or two drinks with the accused on the afternoon in question, Good afterwards driving him home. If witness had appeared intoxicated it was due to illness and not to drink. In avoiding a parked van the car had collided with the lorry, which was backing out of a gateway. The Magistrate: The other witnesses sav the lorry was backing in. If that is your recollection of the accident 1 cannot place much reliance on your evidence about the presence of a covered van. " I am going to give the accused the benefit of the doubt regarding the intoxication charge, but I am quite satisfied that he was driving dangerously," said Mr. Hunt, in imposing a fine of £5 and costs. The magistrate directed that Good's licence be endorsed and that the lorry driver be paid £2 5s to make good the damage caused to his vehicle.