NOT GUILTY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10903, 18 May 1921, Page 5

NOT GUILTY

TRIAL OF GUY FULTON MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE AFTER ‘motor FATALITY. BUSINESS MAN’S ACQUITTAL. •• '■«, The Supreme Court was again crowded yesterday morning, when the hearing was resumed, before His Honour Mr Justice Hosking, of the trial of Guv Leslie Fulton, a Wellington merchant. on a charge of manslaughter, arising out of the death of William tiuskisson, one of the occupants of a gig. with which a car driven by Fulton collided on the Hutt road on tho night of October 2nd, 1920. Mr P. S. K. Macassey appeared for* the Crown. Mr A. Gray, K.C., and with him Mr ‘D. R. Hoggard, appeared for accused. Further lengthy evidence, similar to that tendered in the lower court, was given by the occupants .of the ear, mainlv corroborating the evidence of tho accused on the previous day. CASE FOR DEFENCE CLOSES. John Mcllraitli, grocer, said there was no evidence of injury on the horse when he came to the scene. Clifford Packer, garage mechanic, gave evidence that he tested the brakes of the car on the day before the accident. a wet road a dark object could not be readily picked up. Twenty-five miles an hour was not an excessive speed, provided a good lookout were kept. Croft, the driver of the gig, and the constable were recalled by the Crown. This closed the case for the defence. WAS THERE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ? Counsel for the defence asked for a direction by His Honour on the point of contributory negligence. His Honour said he would rule, without regard for the point, being guided by the New Zealand Code: If there was negligence on the other side, it would not bo an excuse, in criminal law. The onus would rest on the defence to prove that such negligence had created a critical position. The standard of diligence defined by, the code is that of “a ’reasonable and skilful man” A second point was raised by counsel—That section 181 did not apply to a case of involuntary injury, nor to an injury not dangeroua to life. In this ease the wound was not dangerous, as the medical testimony showed that deceased would probably have lived to old age had an operation not been performed. His Honour replied that he would not reserve a point on the question of wilfulness, but the point, in regard to tho dangerous nature of the wound ’ would be reserved. It was open to the defence \to apply for a new trial. A juryman: Did the deceased make any statement in regard to the accident? , His Honour: I am not aware, hut it would not have been evidence unless made with death approaching. HIS HONOUR’S SUMMING UP. His Honour, in summing up, said that manslaughter did not carry with it the criminal mind that was associated with offences such as theft or false pretences. The jury would have to decide what waa reasonable skill and care by a driver of “a dangerous machine,” and whether Huskisson met his death as a result of the accident. If an injury is caused, and death occurs _ subsequent to medical treatment, applied in good faith, ‘ it did not exonerate the accused. It was a question for the jury as to whether the doctors at the hospital did all thov could, whether an X-ray photo could have been taken at right angles, instead of in the one direction. Ho would ucit •xnress an opinion on it. Did the accused keep a proper lookout, although he had enough lights? Was the speed reasonable ? Although It was said to be so, it may not justify a driver using it on a busy road, like the Hutt road. The load was wide, and there was very little traffic on the occasion. Again, was the gig casting a visible light? That was not quit* the simple issue, for, if it had none, and there was excessive speed and no look-out, it would not exonerate the accused. It would only excuse him if its absence prevented him from avoiding vanning the gig down. Three occupants of the car _ said the gig had no light. It was important to not* that another witness did not see it. If a man in Croft’s position went - oxtt without a light, ho would lay himself open to a serious charge. With reasonable diligence, prudence and skill, could accused have avoided the collision? A man was entitled to presume that every vehicle an the road at night would be lit. This gig was a very light-framed vehicle. Estimates of time axe often fallacious, and it may be at the speed indicated, that it would }>e a matter of only two seconds between the first view of tho gig and the collision. The whole case depended on the inference to he drawn from the accident itself. The evidence of the experts went to show that the speed was not excessive. With regard to the second count—bodily harm —concluded His Honour, the same considerations would apply, bub, of course, the consequences would be less serious. THE VERDICT. After an hour’s retirement, the -iury returned a verdict of not guilty, ana the accused was discharged from the dock, where he hod been accommodated with a eeat, owing to a recent injury to the ' ankle. During tho afternoon session the court and its precincts was crowded ’with business men. The atmosphere of the court had become somewhat heavy, and His Honour directed that the doorways be cleared, to enable the air to pass through.