SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22324, 26 July 1934, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

CRMrNAL SESSIONS The criminal sessions of tbe Supremo Court were continued yesterday before Mr Justice Kennedy. MOTOR DRIVER ACQUITTED. The hearing was resumed of the case in which George Conway Edwards was charged with, on May 28, negligently driving a motor vehicle so as to cause the death of Charles Edward Cook. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr E. B. Adams) conducted the ease for tbe Crown, and Mr W. M. Taylor appeared for the accused. Evidence was given by Detective Russell, who was a passenger in the car driven by Detective Sergeant Doyle, a previous witues*. and also by Dr. W. B. Hiett, a house surgeon at the Dunedm Hospital, who described the injuries suffered by Cook, and James Eric M'Faull, who also saw the mishap. He stated that the accused put out his hand to indicate that he was turning. Witness thought that the horn was sounded, but was not prepared to swear that it was. The deceased- was looking towards Wharf street for some- time Before he struck the truck.

Constable Holder read a statement in which the accused admitted that he did not sound his horn before turning, and claimed that he entered the intersection in the middle of the road. This concluded the evidence for the Crown, Mr Taylor indicating that he would not call evidence.

Addressing the jury, Mr Adams said that if the accused had failed to take any precaution that a reasonable man would have observed it wae the duty ot the jury to convict. " I should imagine," counsel added, "that there will be little donbt in your minds that the cyclist was guilty of negligence. The truck should have been plainly visible to him, but from the point of view of a criminal charge that is absolutely immaterial." Mr Adams suggested that the real cause of the collision was to be found in the negligence of the accused. One fact emerged very plainly—that the lorry cut the corner. Another fact was that if the accused had not committed that breach of the law there would have been no accident, because the truck would have passed behind the cyclist. The accused had been under an obligation to keep a proper look-out for other traffic, and no man with reasonable eyesight would have had any difficulty in seeing the cyclist. The accused's own statement, in fact, showed that he saw the cyclist 30 feet away. With the two parties travelling in such a way that if they continued on their courses there would be a collision, a duty was incumbent on the driver to watch the cyclist. A single touch of tbe horn button would have saved the cyclist's life. It had been the moral and legal duty of the accused to sound his norn. Counsel again reminded the jury that the standard of care exercised on the roads" depended largely upon the verdicts , returned by juries in such cases as this. Mr Taylor submitted that, whereas the cutting of a corner in a busy part of the city might be negligent, the position was different in the case of a wide,, open corner such as that at which the collision had occurred. Discussing the by-law, counsel suggested that it was designed to prevent such collisions ag might have occurred in this case had traffic been approaching down Wharf street, but counsel submitted that in the circumstances, with no traffic approaching down Wharf street, there had been no danger or negligence in taking the corner even' on the right-hand side. The fact that the tracks showed that nearly all traffic cut .this corner indir cated that the average driver regarded it as reasonable to do so. Furthermore, the fact that the accused was out on his right gave a longer time for the cyclist to see him, and consequently to avoid the accused. Even if the jury were satisfied that the accused was guilty of negligence it still had to be satisfied that his negligence had caused the accident and the death of the cyclist. The real cause of the accident, Mr Taylor submitted, was the absolute failure of the cyclist to look ahead, and the fact that he. had ridden straight into the side of. the truck. Cook had been : 'riding a bicycle to which he had not been accustomed, and had had a raks tied to it. The accident would still- have happened if the accused had been on his correct side of tbe road. There was nothing that the accused could have done to avoid the accident, and the fact that he had not sounded his horn was not sufficient to make him guilty if the jury were satisfied that otherwise he had used reasonable care. After his Honor had summed up the jury retired at. 11.45, 'and returned at 12.20 with a verdict of not guilty. ' GRAVE CHARGES.

John Henry Moulin, for whom Mr C. J. L. White appeared, was charged on three counts with carnal knowledge of a girl under 10 years of age. To each of these charges there was an alternative charge of indecent assault. The accused pleaded not guilty. . ■ The Crown Prosecutor, in opening his case, said that in view of its unpleasant nature he did not propose to discuss the evidence in detail at the present stage. He pointed out, however, that any suggestion that the girl might have been a consenting party should be disregarded, as consent in the case of a girl under 16 was no defence. The offences were alleged to have taken place at the home of the accused, and the girl had stated that she had received small sums or money from him. Evidence would be given by the girl's father of a statement bj the accused which the father regarded as an admission of the offences. Dr W. H. Borrie, in giving evidence, stated that the girl was sub-normal in intelligence. Evidence was also given by the girl concerned, who stated that intercourse between herself and'the accused had taken place on a nunmber of occasions,, on some of which she had received small sums of money.

A girl, aged 15, said that on one occasion when she was in the company ot the previous witness the accused had offered them a ride on his bicycle, but both had refused the offer. She accompanied the other girl to the house of the accused on two occasions, on the first of which the girl whispered something in the cur of the accused, and then they both left. On the second occasion witness waited outside while the other girl went into the house, and, as she did not come out after a fairly long interval, witness left An aunt of the girl concerned stated that she learned that the girl was pregnant about the end of April, Witness, the father, and a sister of the girl then went to the house of the accused. The girl was brought to the house, and she said that the accused was the man responsib'e. After some conversation the accused offered to give the girl's father £2O.

An elder sister of the girl gave corroborative evidence regarding the visit to the accused's house, and the court adjourned till this morning.