MOTORIST’S LICENSE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21365, 19 June 1931, Page 8

MOTORIST’S LICENSE

APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION ACTION BY INSURANCE COMPANY (Special to Dailt Times.) CHRISTCHURCH, June 18. A case of major significance to motorists and the public of New Zealand was heard before E. D. Mosley, S.M., to-day, when the Southern Union General Insurance Company asked for an order suspending the driving license of William Millner, contractor, on the grounds that he was a danger to the public. The application was made under section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928. and is the first of its kind in New Zealand. Mr W. F. Tracey appeared for the company and Mr A. C. Hanlon, K.C.. and Mr M. W. Simes represented Millner.

In its statement, the company stated that the application was made on the grounds that the safety of the public wae being unduly endangered by Millner. The company also applied for an order disqualifying Millner from obtaining another license for such period as the court might think fit.

Millner was also charged, on the information of the company, with driving in a manner dangerous to the public on March 23. He pleaded not guilty. Evidence was heard about an accident on March 23, when the accused was alleged to have collided with another car at a crossing while travelling at 30 miles an hour, and it was stated that after the collision the accused drove away swiftly in his car.

Dr W. M. Cotter gave evidence about pursuing a car involved in a collision, and taking the nuthber, which was the number of accused’s car, but he admitted to Mr Hanlon that he was not prepared to swear that the car whose number he took was the one that had been involved in the accident, because it was just possible that he might have become confused, as he did not have the fugitive car in sight all the time. James Leonard Davis, insurance adjuster, said that Millner had admittted liability concerning the collision, saying he felt a slight bump while going over the crossing. ■ , To Mr Hanlon, witness said that the company, despite Millner’s acceptance of liability, had paid part of the claim. The rest had not been paid. Millner had admitted feeling a bump, but had not admitted hitting another car. In regard to the application for the suspension of Millner’s license, Mr Tracey said the Act under which it was made was intended to provide for the covering of third party risks of all drivers in New Zealand. The cover was given by private companies, but as soon as « license was taken out the company had no option but to accept the risk. Under section 14 of the Act, however, the company could bring to the notice of the court any special or undue risk undertaken under compulsion by the company. On October 15, 1929, Millner had been convicted of being intoxicated while in charge of a car. On that occasion he had collided with a P. and T. Department truck, and had bolted off. On April 15, 1931, he had been convicted of negligent driving and failing to report an accident. He had knocked down a motor cyclist, and there was a claim against him now for £2500. Mr Hanlon pointed out that though the Act had been in force since 1929 and there had since then been thousands of claims all over New Zealand the Southern Union had been the'first company to be unsportsmanlike enough to try to escape flrom its liabilities. He would prove that Millner had taken his other insurances away from the Southern Union Company, and the company, seeing that it was left with the risks of his third party risk and had lost his £6O or £7O-of premiums, had decided to come to the magistrate to get his license taken away. " There was nothing before you to-day that was not before you before, except an attempt to prove this accident in which Millner was alleged to be involved, a thing they have utterly failed to do,’ Mr Hanlon concluded. The defendant was called as a witness by Mr Hanlon.. “ This is the first case of its kind that has ever cropped up to my knowledge in New Zealand,” said the magistrate, and I think it deserves a little consideration. Judgment is reserved on both points.”