CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19550, 5 August 1925, Page 4

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

SEQUEL TO FATAL ACCIDENT. MOTORISTS BEFORE SUPREME COURT. In the Supremo Court yesterday, before his Honor Mr Justice Sim and a jury of 12, William Martin Heckler and Edward Carnegie were charged with having committed manslaughter by killing William James Cochrane. They were also charged under the new motor regulations with having negligently driven a motor car so as to cause the 'death of William James Cochrane. Air F. B. Adams (Crown Solicitor) conducted the case for the prosecution, and Air B. S. Irwin represented the accused. Mr Adams said the two accused were indicted on two counts. The first was manslaughter and the second was negligently driving a motor car and thereby causing the death of the boy Cochrane. 'iho charge of manslaughter was the ordinary charge brought in a case where death ensued through negligence in driving a vehicle. Under the Alotor Vehicles Act, 1324, it had become possible to lay a charge, not of manslaughter, but of causing death by some negligence in driving a car. It would bo for the jury to select one or other of the counts if it decided on a verdict of guilty,' «md not to act upon both. The Crown invited the jury to regard the case as one of manslaughter in the first place. Mr Adams went on to say that Heckler was actually driving die car at the time of the accident, and Carnegie, the owner of the car, was sitting by his side. Heckler was being taught to drive by Carnegie. It appeared that Heckler had driven this car only about twice before the accident, and was, therefore, quite a novice in the art of driving. The owner would bo really the person in charge of the car, and on him would rest the responsibility for the safety of persons. If there was any neglect of duty on v,aruegie’s part it was open to the jury to convict, him as well as Heckler. The accident occurred on the Balclutha traffic bridge. When the accused got to the bridge there was a dray about 100 yards from the same end of the bridge, so that the car would have to travel more than 100 yards before it got up to the dray. The car was a Ford car, aml there was no evidence that there was any defeit in it. The speaker wont on to say that the saving of a second or two in time in the application of the brakes would have resulted in the boy’s life being saved. It would .be said that the accident was due to the slippery condition of the bridge, but if there was a liability to skidding ho submitted that the brakes should have been applied earlier. If the drivers had exercised reasonable care they would have realised the danger of skidding and vyould nave taken precautions m. plenty of time. This was not the case of a driver suddenly finding himself in a position of danger. In fact, looking at the matter beforehand it was almost inconceivable that an accident should have happened. It was open to the jury to find one man guilty and acquit the other. Ho, however, submitted that they would find no difficulty in finding both the accused guilty. John Ebonezer Brown, qualified medical practitioner, deposed to having seen the hoy Cochrane in bed shortly after the accident. He was suffering severe pain in the abdomen. Ho was in a collapsed condition and ho had all the symptoms ot acute internal haemorrhage. lie was in much too serious a condition to admit of being shifted. Witness thought he . could live only a few hours. An urgent operation was the only hope of recovery and ho sent him to Dunedin for that purpose. John Alexander Douglas Iverach, a qualified medical practitioner, deposed that he was assistant medical officer in the Dunedin Hospital. Ho remembered the boy Cochrane being admitted to the Hospital. He was suffering, from internal hajmorrhage. Ho made arrangements for a transfusion of blood 20 minutes after the patient’s admission, but ho died before this could be done. There were braises and abrasions on (ho boy’s body. The cause of death was heart failure following loss of blood. Samuel James Douglas, a labourer employed by the Balclutha Borough Council, said h° was working in the Glut ha River bed on the day of the accident. Ho would he about two chains below the bridge. Ho was engaged in loading shingle on to a dray. Ho remembered seeing a motor car come on to the bridge. At the same time ho saw a dray on Iho bridge. The dray was laden with timber. Ho thought the dray was moving at the rate of about throe miles an hour. The motor car and the dray were travelling in iho same direction. I'he motor car was travelling at the rate of between 10 and 20 miles an hour. Ho heard someone call out: “Look out!” The motor oar would then bo about six yards away from the cart. He could not say at what speed the motor car was travelling at this stage. lie hoard the brakes of the motor ear being put on very hard. He saw the motor car push the hoy underneath the dray out of witness’s view. When he first saw the motor car ho thought it would be throe or four chains behind the dray. Witness did not hear any horn sounded. To Mr Irwin; He did not notice anything unusual about the speed at which he saw the car coming on to the bridge. James Weir, police constable stationed at, Balclutha, said he know the Balclutha traffic bridge well. The plan produced was an accurate one. The bridge was 300yds in length. The spot marked with a cross on the plan was 100yds from the Lanark street or Balclutha end of the bridge. The width of the bridge where the accident acquired was 13ft. The width of the bridge at this spot. was. however, slightly restricted by two planks which were lying there. The-bridge was a public highway, and was used for foot traffic ns well as wheeled traffic. There was a separate fontbridge as well. On the wheel tracks on the bridge the planks wore placed lengthwise. To Mr Irwin: The footbridge and the traffic bridge were one. There wore at least four passageways through which one could go from one to the other. Donald David Tosh, 12 years of nge, said ho resided with his parents at Balclutha. Ho was in Standard V at the Public School. He know Edward Bezett. Bezctt and he were walking homo from school together. He saw a car come on to the bridge after witness had got on to it. He also saw a dray ahead, 'flic dray contained timber and roofing iron. The timber and iron were projecting beyond the back of the cart. Ho saw iho hoy Cochrane hanging on to the cart. Ho (witness) was ahead of the cart. When the cart caught up on them witness went to the side "of the bridge. Ho heard the driver of the cart call out “look out.” Willie Cochrane did not appear t° have time to jump aside. He .saw the motor car siriko him and crush him against the timber. Deceased walked over to the side of the bridge and then fell down. Ho estimated the speed of tho car at 10 or 12 miles an hour when the accident happened. When tho driver of tho dray called out the car was only a few yards away. Tie did not hear the horn sounded or tho brakes applied. Before tho accident happened he hoard tho deceased talking with the driver of tho dray. The dray did not stop prior to tho accident. To Mr Irwin; Ho told the magistrate at 'Balclutha that he know a little about tho speed of a car.

Edward George Bezett said ho was 12 years of ago and resided with his parents at Balclutha. Ho corroborated the evidence given by the previous witness. Ho said ho saw Willie Cochrane hanging on to the dray, his feet being on (ho bridge. Ho could .not say how fast the oar was travelling when it came on to the bridge. Ho did not, hear n horn sounded. He witnessed the accident. The accused took (he boy Cochrane away in the motor car. The. timber on the dray was projecting about: 2ft behind (ho car, and the roofing iron about, one foot. The timber went through the windscreen of the accused’s car. Hector George Hare said he was 18 years of age, arid was employed as a farm hand by Mr Weir of Stirling. He was driving a' spring dray across the Balclutha bridge on the day of the accident. The timber was 14ft in length, and projected 4ft behind the rear of the cart. The boy Cochrane was hanging on to witness’s cart when crossing the bridge. V itness was riding on the’cart. Ho had been talking with the boy Cochrane. There were other boys about, but they were on the footbridge. Some of the boy? came on to the traffic bridge and bung on to the cart driven by witness, 'flic cart was travelling at a slow walking pace. He beard a motor car born sounded, and on looking round he saw a car coming on’ to the bridge. Ho did not think it possible for a car to pass a cart on the bridge. He saw the car approaching and called out, “look out.” The boy Cochrane, who was hanging on to the carf, seemed to tic caught and was squeezed between the motor car and the timber ou trie cart. Witness heard no sound of brake..-, being applied by the motorists. He spoke to the two accused, but nothing was said about, attempting to pass the cart. It was Carnegie who drove the car when they tool; {lie injured boy away. I[e:k!er w;w driving when the impact took place. lb’ seemed to have a firm grip of the steering wheel. The : mp'u-t, moved the roofing iron forward about v*.

To Mr Irwin: Tho car scorned to jump at tho boy. Tho impact drove the cart against the horse. John Henry James Stevenson said he was a garage proprietor at Balclutba, and was agent for Ford cars at .Balclutba. At the request of Detective Lean he took'a Ford car on to the bridge, where he conducted tests. Tho detective signalled to witness when to stop. By aid of the foot brake alone lie. was able to lock the wheels of the car. The oar was a new* ono, and the brakes were in good order* In order to avoid locking, the wheels it was necessary not to apply the brakes too hard, especially it the track wore slippy. The bridge was wet when these tests were carried out. - He thought it would bo quite safe for a Ford car to travel at from eight to 12 miles an hour on a wet bridge. It would not be safe to approach closer than. 20 yards to a vehicle all cad which was travelling in the same direction. A Ford car could not travel on the Balclutba bridge on top gear at three miles an hour. James Edward jVTQuitty said he was a police constable stationed at Milton. He interviewed both accused, who gave signed and written statements. Jeffrey Charles Gordon (clerk of the Magistrate’s Court at Balclutba) said he typed the evidence given in the Coroner s Court at Balclutba. It was an accurate record. Mr Irwin, who stated that no evidence would bo called for the defence, stated that there wore two counts in tho indictment, out the only difference in substance between the two charges was that manslaughter merited life imprisonment, while a person convicted under tho other charge was liable to imprisonment for five year’s or a fine of £SOO. The question of penalty, however, was one for Ins Honor, and had nothing to do with the jury. The jury had been told that if a person was guilty of negligence and that negligence-resulted in a person being killed that amounted to ' manslaughter. The jury- had to find whether tho boy Cochrane met his death as a result of the negligence of one or both of tho. accused, and in order to come to a conclusion they must ask .themselves what, in substance, was ■ tho negligence suggested. The cases of tho two men were quite different. Heckler, ‘who was driving the car, was not an export driver. ho other man was the owner of the car, and lo a certain extent was directing Heckler. There was no suggestion that these men were not perfectly sober. It seemed clear that when the car got on tho bridge there was a slowing-dowu in the speed. ~ tho car got near tho dray the owner called out to his companion to jam on the brakes because he thought Heckler was getting too close to tlxo dray. What else could Carnegie have done? He could only sib beside tho driver, and if the car was going at a moderate speed there was nothing to call for ’ interference on his part. Mr Irwin submitted that it could note be suggested that Carnegie was guilty “. of * any negligence. The car skidded, and, unfor--innately, caused the death of the boy, but if it had answered the brakes a few inches further back it would have been .milled up, and tho bov would not have been killed, It had been stated that the car seemed to jump at tho boy at the last, but if it had not been for tho little extra pressure by Heckler's foot that would not have happened. It turned out that the car skidded further (ban either of (ho accused thou'dil it would skid and (hat it struck tho hack of tho dray. The speaker went ou to submit (hat if reasonable earn was taken by (ho instructor and by the. pupi thov discharged tho onus on them, and wore not guilty of negligence. It was riot suggested ib at tho accused \\oro un\ing at an excessive speed. Be suoin.it led that Carnegie had nothing to do with the accident as far as negligence was concerned. He fold Heckler to pull up when he was getting a little too close to the dray, but Heckler did not succeed in doing so. Jn conclusion Mr Irwin submitted that no negligence had been proved against Heckler. , His Honor said there were two counts, one of manslaughter, and ono in which both accused were charged with negligence, and thus causing tho death of the boy Cochrane. If the jury found a verdict of guilty it ought to ho with regard to tho first count. "The now Motor Vehicles Act was clear on tho finest ion of negligence. He did nor think they could draw any distinction between the two accused. i lie question wan: Had they failed to carry out the duty imposed upon by Hie istatihe,.' To ran into a vehicle going in the same direction clearly indicated negligence. 1 -ie question for Tho jury to consider was: Were tho accused negligent,' It "as admitted (hat. Heckler was not only inexperienced hut was incompetent. He had therefore no right to be driving that ear across the bridge with traffic ahead. It was clearly negligence on Heckler s part and it was equally negligence on the part of Carnegie to allow Heckler to continue driving the car, having regard to all the circumstances. His Honor then reviewed the evidence. The accused Heckler, ho said, had slated in evidence in the lower court that the dray had stopped, and that that, wa.s tho cause of tho collision. Jhafc evidence was contradicted by oilier witnesses and,was not corroborated in any particular. All tho evidence pointed to ihe dray not having stopped until after the accident. The whole question tho jury had to consider ■ was whether there was negligence on the part of the accused. If Hi ore was negligence on (ho part of the. accused then they would tied them guilty pn the first count. ■ Tho jury retired at 4.41 and returned at 5.10 pan. with a verdict of not guilty ou both counts. The accused were thereupon discharged. The court then adjourned to 10 a in. the following day.