NOT A CASE FOR GAOL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19532, 15 July 1925, Page 5

NOT A CASE FOR GAOL.

AN INTOXICATED MOTORIST. ' TOOK A WISE PRECAUTION. It has been the custom with magistrates for some time past to sentence to terms of imprisonment persons found guilty of being drunk while in charge of motor ■vehicles, but in the Magistrate’s Court at Christchurch the other day;• one such offender was fined £lO, there being some circumstances in his favour, The chief was that he handed his car over to someone else to take home when he realised he was not able to control it. The defendant was George Exton, farrier, who whom Mr R. Twyneham appeared and altered a morning plea of not guilty to one of guilty. Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., heard the case. Sergeant C. E. Roach stated that the defendant, when driving his car near the post office, had bumped into a stationary laxi. A taxi-driver had driven the car to Exton’s home for him. Mr Twyneham said he fully knew the practice of the court now in such cases, but there were some circumstances which he would like to bring out Exton‘was a man who had not been in trouble before, was not a drinking man, and was an expert in his trade. He did the horse-shoe-ing for many of the most prominent racehorse owners in Canterbury. His car was his own. The Magistrate; If he were a drinking man he probably would not be able to have a car. Mr Twyneham agreed and added that yesterday afternoon the'defendant had been to a funeral, and after it he had had business to do. During the course of it he had a few drinks, but when ho left the hotel he i was quite all . right. He drove only from High street to the post office, where the mishap occurred, a matter of only 200 or 300 yards. He asked a taxidriver to run, his car home, and he and u friend walked When the friend left, Exton retraced his steps to the post office to sec if his car was away, and it was then that he was arrested. Constable Wilkins said he arrested Exton near the post office. The car was then away. He was charged with being in charge of a car while intoxicated. “Why did you t not charge him with drunkenness?” asked the magistrate. “Ton did not see him with the car, but heard only the statements of taxi-drivers. I take it that you thought he was not sufficiently drunk to be arrrested for drunkenness.” After further evidence was given theMagistrate said the case was not quite an ordinary one. The defendant found himself unable to control the car owing more or less to a state of intoxication —more he should say than less —and either of his own - olition or because the wiser counsel of hla companion prevailed he abandoned the attempt to drive. There was no question of excessive speeding or dangerous driving, and there did not seem to be any reckless conduct. He did not think it a case for imprisonment, and Exton would be fined £lO and ordered to pay costs.