MOTOR DRIVER CHARGED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19204, 21 June 1924, Page 2

MOTOR DRIVER CHARGED

ALLEGATION OF DEUNKENNESS. RESISTING THE POLICE. Joseph Clarke, who was defended by Mr A. C. Hanlon, was charged before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., at the City Police Court with having, on January 11, in King street north, been drunk while in charge of a motor car, and also with resisting Constable Chapman in the execution of bis duty.—Accused pleaded not guilty. Constable Chapman stated that from information received in regard to an accident be followed the track of two cars. One set of these was made by a car driven by accused, and was on the right hand side of the road going north. He found later that one of the cars had been badly knocked about. Witness interviewed accused, and asked him how it was he came to bo on the wrong side of tho street. Accused had replied that a tramcar had been approaching, and he had not waited for it, but had gone over to tho Gardens aide of tho road. Tho accused was drunk. He smelt of liquor, and Was staggering about. Accused caught hold of witness and wanted to shake hands. He then used bad language, and witness caught hold of him. Accused struggled violently, and his wife tried to get him away, but a man came to the assistance of witness, and accused was taken m a conveyance to the watchhouse, struggling all the way. On reaching there ho was locked up. Constable Macphcrson stated that when accused was brought to the station he was resisting violently. He was mad drunk. He was waving hi s arms about and snouting loudly. Constable Ellens gave similar evidence, ami staled that accused was drunk and ligh tabic. George Ellis staled that near tho Gardens he saw a man repairing the tyres of a car. He saw the lights of another car approaching, and this car came right at witness and his truck. The approaching car was driven by accused, and the front of it struck witness’s truck about the left hand step, and swung it right across the toad. He went to speak to accused, but Mrs Clarke would not let him do so. Accused was either drunk or dazed, and wag hanging over the wheel.

To Mr Hanlon: Witness’s car was lighted. To Senior-sergeant Mathieson: It was seven or eight minutes before witness communicated with the police. Sergeant Turner said he saw accused on the night of his arrest, which was about 10 minutes after he was brought to the police station. Ho was in a very excited state. He took him quietly for a few minutes, and found ho was very incoherent in his speech. He was satisfied that ho was drunk. Ho asked witness what he had been arrested for. He told Olarke the charge that had been laid against him. Clarke said he-had not had a drink that day. Trover Holland, bailiff, said he was in the watchhouse when accused was brought in. Ho had no hesitation in saying that accused was drunk. His actions generally indicated that he was very much excited. Ho was quite satisfied that he would nor have acted as he did had ho not been under the influence of liqtior.

Robert Walls, motor mechanic, said ho was in the vicinity of the Gardens shortly after 5 o’clock on the day in question. Accused was on his wrong side, when he approached the motor truck driven by Eillis. Accused’s car eventually struck Ellis’s trqck. Accused was responsible for the, (collision. Clarko was drunk, smelt strongly of drink, and was staggering about.

Walter Ernest Scott, motor mechanic, who was with the previous witness repairing a tube, corroborated the evidence given l> v him. Accused smelt strongly of liquor and was unsteady on his feet. He would say that he hod had several drinks. Mr Hanlon said that it seemed to him that a great deal of what had been said in evidence bad very little to do with the case. The charges were being drunk while in charge of a motor car and resisting the police. If accused had been drunk while in charge of a motor oar he (counsel) supposed he would be resisting the police. If he were not drunk while in charge of the car lie would not lie guilty of resisting the police. The real question was: Was he drunk at file time the accident occurred r/ The evidence on the point of drunkenness was particularly unsatisfactory and unconvincing. It was the same old thing. A constable arrested a man for drunkenness and when the man reached the police sta tion ho Imre the appearance of being unde? the influence of drink. _ The man who had bad a drink smelt of liquor, and if a man had the smell of liquor upon him and was flushed and excitable, the police were justified in thinking he. was drunk. Counsel proceeded to criticise the evidence as to the condition of accused, and suggested that there was no justification for the opinion that the man was drunk. A man who had been in the boxing ring and had bad a few rounds of a few minutes each came out of the ring flushed in the face and red about the eyes, and if be onlv had (ho smell of liquor about him there would ho no difficulty in getting a policeman to swear ho was drunk. That was the sort of evidence there was in the present case The question as to who was to blame fotho accident would be the subject of civil proceedings. When Ellis’s oar was struck this man (accused) had had the right-of-way and the other man was in the wrong. What was being attempted w r as to show that this man was wrong in bis conduct, which would help to show that he was drunk. It was clear that it was Ellis’s duty to pci! to the left, and therefore to the rear of this man’s vehicle when it crossed over the street. He (Mr Hanloni would call evidence to prove that accused was not drunk at the time the mishap occurred.

Robert Lawson, storeman, deposed that Clarke called at Steven and Company’s business promises shortlv before 5 o’clock on the evening of the accident. Ho took delivery of two sacks of grain dust, suitable for pig feed. Accused handled his car quite well and stacked the bags on the oar himself He was perfectly sober, and witness did not smell liquor upon him. Witness and a man named Henderson rode on the car with accused as far as the Leith bridge.— Mrs Clarke joined the car at this spot.— To the Senior-sergeant; He was surprised to hear that four police officials and Mr Holland, the bailiff, had sworn that accused was drunk. James Henderson, storeman, at Steven and Company’s mills, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Ho was not close enough to ascertain if accused smelt of drink. To the Senior-sergeant; Ho did not think it was possible for a drunken man to handle a motor car. He did not see Mrs Clarke. Art this stage the hearing wits adjourned till Friday next.