BOY'S DEATH

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22632, 25 July 1935, Page 13

BOY'S DEATH

CHARGES AGAINST QUIN CROWN CASE CONCLUDED OGHTEEN WITNESSES HEARD After. 18 witnesses had been heard the case for the Crown was concluded yesterday in the Supreme Court hearing of charges against Edward Richard Quin arising out of a collision in Stuart street on Easter Saturday. The charges against Quin are 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 prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and the accused was represented by Mr C. J. L. White and Mr J. S. Sinclair. MEDICAL EVIDENCE Dr E. R. Harty resumed his evidence, outlining, in reply to Mr White, the factors which convinced him that the accused was drunk when examined at 7 o'clock on the night of the collision. In his opinion Quin was not in a fit condition to transact business. There was sucb a lack of co-ordination in his movements that there was no need for special tests. Memory tests that were made were in the accused's favour, but witness did not attach much importance to 1 hem. Quin was'in a very excited condition, and witness would take him to be ordinarily a very excitable man. He agreed, up to a point, with the statement of Dr Evans that: " Provided there is no smell of alcohol the symptoms of shock and excitement are the same as those of alcoholism." In reply to Mr Adams, witness stated that the symptoms of drunkenness might have been more acute when he saw Quin than when Dr Evans saw him. Percival James David Erridge, verger at St. Paul's Cathedral, stated that the boy who was the victim of the collision was his son. and was 13 years of age. Riding a new bicycle, he left home in Moray place at ,5.20 on-Easter Saturday to purchase some fish, and ■between 5.30 Bnd 5.40 witness" heard that he had been involved in an accident. V COURSE TAKEN BY CAR The movements- of the accused's car were described, by John Johnson Simpson. He stated that two wheels of the car went on the footpath opposite the side door of the Oban Hotel, and it then turned across the road, striking the bicycle. The car was travelling very slowly when witness first saw it, but it seemed to go faster after mounting the footpath. After striking the bicycle the car ran up on the footpath on the other of the road, coming to rest against a building. There was no decrease in the speed of the car as it «rossed the Toad, and it-did'Hot swerve. There was, nothing to obstruct the driver's view, and the boy was clearly visible. ■ He noticed nothing in particular about<-the condition of the accused except" that .he was rubbing his hands across his face. - , ..'

In reply to Mr Sinclair, witness said' that' lie saw nothing to indicate that Qult\. was drunk;' - .' ' : i' .!

\ TJie. occurrence, was also 'described by Douglas*. • Peter "Kennedy,' a medical student, and Alex Donald Dimick Inglis, a labourer, of Invercargill. Inglis said that Quin appeared to have had liquor and. was.in |_ a state in which a driver misrht be inclined to take risks.

Replying to Mr White, witness stated that he would riot say that Quin was very drunk. . ..Joseph 1 Anderson, radio mechanic, said that lie .had seen the marks of the car. He traced them as far back as George street. At the point near the carriers' telephone box the tracks were on the right-hand side, and then they went on to. the. footpath at the Oban Hotel, about 10 yards from the corner of the Octagon and Stuart street. * The tracks showed no siens of skidding. Arthur Beecher Rooney, of Roxburgh, said, that while lie was standing on the kerb under Matheson and Roberts's veranda the accused's car brushed past his leg. : /Then the two near wheels mounted the footpath. After the collision. he noticed that the licensed was intoxicated. He was struggling, with two men v wh6 • were holding him. .He was not in a fir condition to drive a car. Witness ■' heard him say, "I am going for a. booze." , , • . In answer fb .Mr Sinclair, witness admitted saying that he came to the conclusion; that the accused was intoxicated because he was excited, and that he did not see anything, else to indicate that the. accused was drunk. ... Leonard Hall, .a motor mechanic, said (hat he.was. the owner of the cycle concerned in the accident. He left it against a post, and when he returned he found the front wheel damaged and\a motor ear, against a building,/lose by. It appeared that the car had run over the wheel of the cycle- --'-* ' Francis Stoddart, Little, a surveyor, produced a plan of the locality and described marks which he found. Photographs were also produced by Constable M'Donald . Brown, the police photographer. Constable Marshall said that the accused, whom he saw at'the police station, appeared to be under the influence of liquor. He was excited and was waving his arms about. Witness also described marks which he found at the scene of the collision. . To Mr Sinclair: The accused did not appear to be very excited when he had seen him., The accused was moving about the room. Witness said he did not take notice whether the accused wa« staggering 01 not.

Detective Gibson also gave formal evidence with respect to the scene of the collision.

Arthur Wimpenny, a motor claims assessor, described the damage to Quiri's car, statin:? - that it had brakes of an efficient type. The car had been damaged in such a way that no test of the brakes could be made after the accident. The ptpcring gear was also of a reliable and accurate kind. A distance of 1} inches separated the brake and accelerator pedals. There was nothing to indicate that the stcerinjr gear was out of prdor before the collision. In response to a question witness stated that the pedals were closer together than in ordinary types of cars. WOMAN'S EVIDENCE Mrs Ethel Margaret Holm, a housekeeper, eaid that on the morning of the accident she went for a walk up town with a Mrs Pearce, with whom she was living. Mrs Pearce left her to speak to \ Quin. who came out of the Crown Hotel. Mrs Pearce or Quin suggested that they should have a drink and they went to Wain's Hotel. There they had two drinks each, Quin drinking " pony " beers. He showed no signs- of 'intoxication. Quin drove them to the Rio Grande, where he left them. Before this Mrs Pearce had invited the accused to go to her house at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and bring a "spot." Shortly after that time Quin arrived, leaving

his car at the bottom of the hill In Filleul street. He showed no signs of intoxication then. He brought a bottle of ale and a bottle of stout, which was consumed by Quin, Mrs Pearce was; herself- Quin then went to his car and brought in half a bottle of whisky. She had one drink and she could not say how many Quin bad. On bis arrival he eaid that be was not going to drink whisky and wanted her to drink it. Apart from the drink which she had and one taken by Mrs Pearce and on'} by a Miss Burton, Quin drank the whisky. Two men, Long and Jamieson, arrived during the afternoon, Long bringing a few bottles of beer. Quin asked Long who he was and what he wanted, and Long hit Quin. They made it up afterwards and had a few drinks. When Quin left the house Long apologised and they all went back into the house, the accused having " quite a few " glasses of beer. They remained until nearly 5 o'clock, and she walked to Quin's car with him. _He was staggering all over the place. He could stand and no more. She walked with him to the car, and the accused kept saying that he was going to have Long arrested. Quin wanted her to meet him that night, stating that he would have Long arrested if she did not. She got into the car because she did not want to be seen talking to the accused in the street. She tried to prevent him from driving, but he.said that he could drive and wanted her to go with him. To Mr Sinclair: She had never seen Quin before the day of the accident. She would swear that she had seen Quin come out of the Crown Hotel. Mr Sinclair: When you first met Quin was there no mention of a job? Witness: Mrs Pearce only said that to protect herself because she wanted a "spot." / I put it to you that it was you who produced the whisky in the afternoon ? —I deny it; Were yo'u quite sober?-—Yes.-The atmosphere was altered when Long arrived?—Yes; there was a general disturbance. . .'■-.<''. Was Miss Burton not knocked down? —Yes.':.; Witness was. asked why she followed Quin to his.car. "I put it to you," said Mr Sinclair, "that you were afraid that he would go to the police and tell what kind of house Mrs Pearce's was." Witness: It had nothing to do with me. You followed him to prevent him going to the police? —I was not frightened of the police. t[■% You were a witness in a case in Christchurch ?—Yes. You. remember a prosecution for burglary against a man named Mitchell? —Yes; I was a witness. You were" living in the same house as Mitchell and his wife and Mrs Pearce? —Not Mrs Pearce^ Mitchell was charged, with burglary and with being in possession of a loaded firearm?—Yes. The day after, the" burglary did you make a statement in writing to the police ?—The night he was arrested. Did you give evidence at the trial of Mitchell?—'l was on oath in,court, but not when I made the. statement to the police. '.'.■■' Did you say. this: "In the first statement I made to the police the first night everything I said in it was practically lies"?—Yes. Has this man Long obtained a position for you?—He called on the Saturday to tell me > about a position. But was Lou? in a fit state to discuss a position?—He told nie where to go. But he was hopelessly drunk.—No. He had had a few drinks. In answer to Mr Adams, witness stated that the first statement given by her in the Christchurch case was given at about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. She did not then want to make a statement,

When did you tell the truth? —In the second statement. . .

Where you examined as a witness for tlie'Crown?—Yes. Has, the accused seen you since the collision? —After, I too«t the position Quin, Miss Burton, and a sister-in-law of Quin called on me one night at 6.30. I told them I could not talk there and we went down the l street. They wanted me to go. on. their side and they would help, me. Was Quin present all this time? —No. Was anything said about helping you I while he" was ' present—l would not swear to it. What did Quin say?—He wanted me to go on the defence.. This was before the evidence was taken in i the lower court, I told Quin I didn't want to have anything to do with it. The police had not seen me then. AFTER THE COLLISION Constable Summers said that after the collision he saw the accused struggling with two riien who wanted him to get back into the car. He asked the accused how/the accident had occurred but could get no sensible story. He then asked when the accident happened and the accused said, "About 3 o'clock." The exact time then was 5.30. Asked how much, liquor he had had, the accused replied: "Not much. Only a few drinks, and I could go another right now." He wanted to go to the Oban Hotel, but witness would not allow him. Quin was unsteady on his feet and leaned on witness the whole time for support. He was, in witness's opinion, quite drunk. Constable Sullings- also stated that, Quin was drunk at this time. Witness had to use a. fair amount of force to take him to the police station. On the way the accused stumbled two or throe times. Witness had to iielp him all the way to' prevent him from falling The accused-told him that he tried to dodge the boy. He did not apply his brakes and the only way to avoid an accident was to accelerate.

Constable Tither and Sergeant Forsyth also gave evidence with, respect to the condition of the accused, and this concluded the case for the Crown. After Mr White had intimated that evidence would be called for the defence, the court was adjourned until this morning.