LONG TRIAL ENDS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23791, 19 October 1940, Page 13

LONG TRIAL ENDS

ACCIDENT SEQUEL TWO MEN CONVICTED LAW QUESTION RESERVED The hearing of "barges against two men who were alleged by the Crown to have been responsible for a motor accident at Huapai on July I<s \\ as concluded before .Mr. .Justice Fair and n jury in the Supreme Court last night. The accused were Alfred Heard Talbot, farmer, aged 43 (Mr. Goldsf in"), who was charged with negligent driving so as to cause injury to Stanley Robert Nixon, aged 10. and Norman Harrison cartage contractor, aged .'53 (Mr. Duggan), who was charged with being intoxicated in charge of a truck and injuring Nixon Both were further

charged with failing; to slop and render assistance alter an accident. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. li. Meredith, condne ted the proseeution. Continuing evidence on bis own behalf, the accused Talbot said that after he had got into Harrison's' truck to drive him home Harrison said be was not going home. Witness went to his own home, and Harrison drove the truck away. No accident occurred while witness was with the truck. Counsel's Submissions

Mr. Duggan said lie did not intend to call evidence.

Addressing the jury, Mr. Goldstine submitted that the evidence showed that lalbot had been forced into this trial by a set of unhappy circumstances for which he uas not responsible. Mr. Meredith said it was a serious thing that there should he in the eommunitv a hit-and-run motorist. There could be 110 doubt that the truck was negligently driven, that the driver tailed to stop, and that it was Harrison's red truck. There was a sequence ot events showing clearly that tho person driving was Talbot and could not be anybody else. Air. Duggan said the Crown case exonerated Harrison from criminal liability Question for Judge His Honor said Harrison could not he found guilty of being in a state of intoxication in charge of a truck and causing injury unless they found it proved that he was driving the truck at the time the accident occurred. There was no evidence that Harrison had anything to do with the swerve that caused the accident. The other three charges of failing to stop and render assistance lay only against the driver, and if Harrison was not the driver he was not guilty. It might he a defect in the Act that it referred to the "driver" instead of tho "person in charge."

After a retirement of four and a-quarter hours the jury returned to ask whether if Harrison was incapable of knowing of the accident lie could lie convicted of failing to stop and render assistance.

His Honor said the question was a very difficult one in law. However, there was the doctrine that a person who aided or abetted was a partv to the offence, and that was the only basis upon which Harrison, if he knew of the accident, could ho held liable. He was prepared to accept a finding from the jury, and reserve the question of law for further consideration.

Tho jury again retired and at the end of five hours found Talbot gnilt.v of negligent driving only and Harrison guilty of failing to stop, failing to ascertain whether there had been injurv and failing to render assistance. The accused were remanded for sentence and tho question of law reserved for further consideration. Harrison was reloaded 011 bail The trial lasted five da vs