DEATH OF A BOY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22631, 24 July 1935, Page 2

DEATH OF A BOY

CHARGES AGAINST QUIN TAKING OF EVIDENCE COMMENCED LENGTHY HEARING EXPECTED The hearing of the charges against Edward Richard Quin, arising out of a collision in Stuart street during the Easter holidays was commenced in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. It was stated that the number of witnesses to be called would be very large, and the case is expected to extend over three days. The charges against Quin were that, on April 20 last, while in a state of intoxication, he was in charge of a motor car and, by an act or omission in relation thereto, he caused the death of Ronald Stuart Erridge; and, alternatively, that he negligently drove a motor car and thereby caused the death of Erridge. Mr F. B. Adams prosecuteed on behalf of the Crown, and the accused was represented by Mr C. J. L. White and Mr J. S. Sinclair.

In opening the case Mr Adams said that the circumstances of the case were such that the jury would find that there would be no possible question about the second of the counts, but the gravamen of the case rested on the charge contained in the first count —the allegation that the accused was drunk at the time. The Crown invited the jury to convict on the first count and to regard the second as an alternative. The facts were simple, though the taking of the evidence would occupy some time. The occurrence took place on the Saturday of the Easter holidays. At about 5.30 that afternoon the accused drove his car into the Octagon from George street towards the Oban Hotel about the middle of the street. When halfway to the Oban Hotel the car veered to the left, and one wheel went up on the footpath. For some distance the car ran on in this way. Finally the car swung to the right and went at right angles across Stuart street. Shortly after the car left the footpath it struck a bicycle upon which the boy Erridge. was riding. The boy wag carried across the road and came into contact with a motor cycle which was standing against a post. The cause of death appeared to be the falling of the motor cycle on the boy. , The mere statement of these facts, Mr Adams continued, threw a heavy onus on the accused. Certainly the car acted in a most extraordinary manner, but its movements could he easily understood if Quin was, in fact, drunk at the wheel. It remained to be seen whether any other adequate explanation could be put forward by counsel for the accused.

Evidence was given by Dr A. G. Gumming with respect to the injuries to the boy, and the next witness was Dr W. Evans, the • police surgeon, who stated that he examined the accused about a quarter of an hour after the accident. After making observations and testing the memory of the accused as to recent events lie decided that the accused was suffering from alcoholism, that his judgment was impaired, and that he was not fit to drive a car.

In reply to Mr Sinclair, Dr Evans stated that what he had said meant that the accused was in a state of intoxication, but not that he was hopelessly drunk. He might have been in a condition to transact business. Quin became emotional for a short period when he referred to the accident. He might have been suffering from intense emotion caused by the accident. At one etage he put his hands to his face and said, "Ohl the poor boy. I can’t get him out of my eyes.” Mr Sinclair: Would it be impossible to say that he A might have been in a state of almost complete nervous collapse although he did not show it?_ Witness: He may have been trying to conceal his emotions. Might the trembling of his hands not have been caused by excitement? —The trouble was not totally due to emotion, although that may have aggravated the tremor.

Asked whether smoking intensified the smell-of liquor in the breath, witness stated that he had never heard such a thing suggested. Mr Sinclair: Is it not a fact that the symptoms of shock and excitement are consistent with alcoholic symptoms. Witness; They may overlap. Will yon admit it? —Yes, provided I don’t smell alcohol in the breath. If a highly excitable man has an accident before Which he has drunk half a glass of beer, he would have difficulty in clearing himself from a charge of intoxication?—You ‘are very generous with your half-glass of beer. Counsel went on to deal with the conflicting statements alleged to have been made by the accused to Dr Evans, suggesting that these were due to the fact, that the accused was trying to conceal something.

“Assuming that the accused found himself at a questionable house that .afternoon,” said counsel, “ and he realised that it was not desirable to disclose that information, would that not be largely consistent with his statements to you? ” Witness: Yes. Therefore the point of significance towards intoxication would be in consequence of that largely minimised.—Yes. The issue which we have been discussing has become controversial? —Yes. It has caused much concern among members of the British Medical Association?—Yes. Would it be fair to say that a highly excitable man, who has perhaps had one or two drinks shortly before an accident and after the accident has reacted emotionally, might find great difficulty in clearing himself of a charge of intoxication?—Yes. In reply to a final question put by Mr Adams, Dr Evans stated that the condition of the accused was not consistent with nervous shock. Evidence with respect to an examination of the accused at 7 o’clock on the evening of the occurrence was given by Dr E. R. Harty. He formed the opinion that Quin was drunk and that he was not in a fit condition to drive a motor

At this stage the hearing was ad journed until this morning.