KILLED BY TRUCK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22198, 27 August 1935, Page 12

KILLED BY TRUCK

DEATH OF PEDESTBIAU 3 ''M DRIVER'S NEGLIGENCE RABBITER'S CONVICTION REMANDED FOR SENTENCE [from our own correspondent] HAMILTON, Monday A plea-of not guilty was entered hy John Henry Mahood, aged 24, a rabbiter, in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Callan to a charge of driving a motor-truck negligently at Cambridge, and causing the death of Ernest McCleutcheon Tapp, aged 41, a resident of Onehunga. Mr. H. T. Gillies prosecuted, and Mr. W. J, , King appeared for tlio defence. Mr. Gillies said the accused was driving a truck when he knocked down deceased and a woman companion. Evidence would show that accused had been drinking prior to the accident, and that the brakes and lights of the van were deficient. When accused knocked the two pedestrians down he failed to stop, and also failed to report the accident to * the police. That feature, however, had no bearing on the present case. r . Lydia Maude Stokes, a single woman, said that at 7 p.m. on Saturday, June 22, she and Mr. Tapp were walking arm in arm along the extreme left of the Cambridge Road. It had been raining slightly, but it was fine at the time. A vehicle coming from behind struck and knocked them both down. Witness was cut and bruised. She did not hear a horn sounded, v Dr. A. L. Wilson stated that deceased was admitted to the Waikato Hospital suffering from severe head and other injuries. He died six weeks later from cerebral hemorrhage. Examination of the Truck. James Steven McMillan, land agent, Hamilton, said that a light rain was falling at the time of the accident, and visibility was very bad. It would have been difficult for a motorist to see pedestrians on the road. Evidence that he saw accused's truck pass along the Hamilton Road, just before the accident at about 30 miles an hour was given by Malcolm Douglas Scott, a Court clerk, Witness said he heard a slight sound, and then saw the truck swerve to the right and turn violently to the left. The truck did not stop. Witness went to the help of the injured man. A hospital nurse, Mamie Isabel Scott, sister of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence. William Munro, motor mechanic, described the brakes of accused's truck as poor. There were no glasses in the head lamps, and the lights tfere deficient. Witness did not examine the vehicle until nearly a month after the accident. He considered it dangerous for the vehicle to be on the road, and that it should not have been driven at more than 15 miles an hour. Evidence that he arrested the ac- | cused near Atiamuri on July o was given by Detective C. P. Belton, who produced a statement in which accused admitted driving the truck that caused the accident. He said his lights were poor. The accused had been fined for failing to stop and failing to report the accident. He had admitted having had two or three drinks before the accident, but claimed that he was sober.

Passengers In Truck

A rabbiter, Kobert Armstrong, said he was drinking with accused on the afternoon of the accident. Witness and two others were in the hotel' longer than accused. Witness, who was in the truck, remembered the bump, but owing to rain he did not see the injured man. Accused drove on for a few hundred yards and then pulled up. They returned p;xst the scene of the accident, but again did not- pull up. Mahood wanted to pull up, but witness pointed out that one of tbs passengers was drunk and there was liquor in the truck. Witness considered Mahood was quite sober. 0 The car was travelling at 20 miles an hour. He considered the lights were reasonably good. The visibility was very bad. Walter Roderick Morgan, rabbiter, Cambridge, another passenger' in accused's truck, said he was too drunk on the night of the accident to know anything about it. Mr. King, in intimating that he would not call evidence for the defence, said he could not defend accused's disgraceful conduct on the night of the tragedy in failing to stop. His actions had been cowardly and reprehensible, but they had no bearing on the charge of negligence. There was no doubt the conditions were difficult. The night was dark and it was raining, while two overhead lights added to -the difficulties respecting- visibility. Mr. King suggested that the accident could be described as an inevitable one. He said there was no evidence in the Crown case to support any suggestion that accused was other than sober. Had the pedestrians, walked on the right-hand side of the road and faced the tramc there would have been no accident. Remarks by the Judge His Honor, in summing up, said there was nothing in the evidence to show that accused was intoxicated prior to the accident- Two pedestrians were walking along ?. straight road and the vehicle approached from directly Mhind them and knocked them down. If that did not suggest negligence, His Honor suggested to the I U J'that pedestrians had no right on country roads at night at all. lights and brakes of the vehicle peared to be poor. It was extremes puzzling to understand why acc " s€ _ and Armstrong did not see the pedestrians. The case was a difficult on . but the question was whether motorist, if he was driving with re sonable prudence and with his vem , under control, having regard to t» visibility and other conditions, c ® , have overtaken the pedestrians struck them without ' negligence. After a retirement of about t hours, the jury returned a vwl !". n guilty, with a strong recommendat to mercy. Sentence was deferred until to-® row. .