INTOXICATION CHARGE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22098, 2 May 1935, Page 14

INTOXICATION CHARGE

DISMISSAL OF CASE POLICE EVIDENCE CRITICISED ' A plea of not guilty to being found in a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor-car in Swanson Street, City, on April 26, was entered by Neil Melville Louisson, aged 80, a merchant, who appeared in the Police Court yesterday before Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M. The magistrate dismissed the information, stating that the police evidence was built on an extremely doubtful basis. Senior-Sergeant Flanagan prosecuted and Mr. Barraclough represented accused. In evidence, Constable Ward said he saw accused and another man walking down Swanson Street toward Queen Street at 1.55 a.m. on April 26, and one of the pair appeared to be staggering in his walk. Accused left his companion and got into a motor-car parked in the vicinity, and when questioned bv witness he got out of the vehicle and stumbled. Fie smelt strongly of liquor. Accused appeared to have had some difficulty in starting the car. Evidence was given by Sergeant Dunn and two constables that accused was intoxicated when brought to the police station, and was not in a fit state to be in charge of a motor-car, apparently being unaware of his position. Dr. L. Ludbrook said he examined accused at the police station, and after submitting bin to the usual tests he came to the conclusion that, although accused had had some liquor, he was still in a fit state to drive a motorcar. He considered that the police statement that accused did not realise his position was absurd. Accused gave evidence. Under crossexamination he said he had spent the previous evening with friends, and had had only a few drinks between i .15 p.m. and when he was arrested. In dismissing tho charge the magistrate said the evidence given by the police was of such a weak nature that a conviction was impossible. In view of tiie medical testimony, the police description of accused's condition at the police station appeared to be a gross exaggeration. The constable responsible for the arrest had stated in evidence that he approached accused in the first instance because he was dubious as to whether he was the lawful driver of the car, and in the face of all the facts it was obvious thatno conviction could be made.