THREE DRINKS WERE ENOUGH

NZ Truth, Issue 1229, 20 June 1929, Page 10

THREE DRINKS WERE ENOUGH

Solicitor Cousins Intoxicated When Driving Car BENCH REFUSED TO SUPPRESS NAME (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Wellington Representative). Solicitors, above most people, are m a position to judge the risk of drivings a motor-car while m a state even resembling intoxication, and it is not often that any of them offend m this way. An exception to the general rule, however, has been provided by Allan Murray Cousins, a solicitor of Wellington, who, although admitted by the police to be a temperate man, so far forgot himself as to take liquor and come under the notice of a traffic officer.

COUSINS, one evening recently, m•- • dulged m three whiskies, and about B^o'clock, m company with two friends, -he drove his motor-car down Willis Street. ' A fire had broken out just before this, and Cousins on his. journey encountered a large crowd of onlookers. He drove slowly through the people, blowing his horn, but a traffic officer came on the scene and stopped him. It was then found that he smelt of drink, and Cousins was arrested and taken to the Central Police Station. Cousins, who was represented by Mr. G. G. Watson, was charged before Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., m the Wellington Police Court, with driving a. motorcar while intoxicated. /Outlining the case, Senior-sergeant Ward stated that he had known Cousins for a considerable period, and, to his knowledge, he was not a man who was addicted to drink. It was with hesitation that he had entered a plea of guilty, said Mr. Watson,- but' after careful consideratiqji he had decided to do so. It was quite true that Cousins had taken more drink that .he should. He had had three drinks on the afternoon after returning from golf, but he had then driven to Kelburn without mishap and after having dinner about 8 o'clock entered his motor-car with two friends and came into Willis Street. , He was then arrested, and, : said counsel, Cousins had been m a state of distress ever since and it was, probably the distress 1 m which he w|s' that the doctors called m to examine him had taken for intoxication. 4 "Cousins has had' his last drink," . said Mr. Watson, "and he will pay the penalty the court imposes, but thera is the penalty of publicity

• 1 that will affect him more seril ously. It will affect his partners t in business, too, and as it is not a case involving dishonesty, and he has never been before the court ! before, I ask that there be suppression of his name." Mr. Watson also asked that Cous- '. ins's licence be not suspended, and pointed out that he was not a man ad- ■ dieted to drinking. The Magistrate said he had a most 'difficult duty to perform, but unfor- - tuhately he had had it put on him : before. In the present case ,there was the standing* and good character of the defendant, but there was also the principle which underlay the duties of motorists. 7 The fact that Cousins was driving carefully had nothing to do with the case; the danger to the public was there, and the moral content of the wrong was there '. when he took liquor and drove his car. He had told the court that, he had had only three whiskies, and that seemed to be about the average, but the result of a man taking two or three whiskies was being shown every day m the papers. .The Magistrate said he had always decided on substantial fines for such cases, and as far as the suspension of ••the license was concerned he ordered suspension if the man were a drinker, but where that was not the case he would act differently. "I have never yet suppressed names m these cases," concluded the Magistrate, "and I don't intend to start now. I will fine Cousins £20 and costs, and will make no order m regard to his license."