INTOXICATED MOTORISTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22720, 5 November 1935, Page 2

INTOXICATED MOTORISTS

OWNER OF CAR CHARGED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED In terms of a decision delivered yesterday in the City Police Court by Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., the owner of a motor car who, too much under the influence of liquor to manage the car, allows a companion who is also under the influence of liquor to drive, and is at the same time a passenger in the car, is guilty of being drunk in charge. Two men, Jack Williamson Brockio and Gustave Neilson, were involved in the case, and while Brockie, who was driving when they were arrested, pleaded guilty, Neilson, the owner of the car, entered a plea of not guilty, contending that as he was not at the wheel he was not in charge of the car. The case was partly heard on Friday, the magistrate reserving his decision until yesterday. Mr J. C. Robertson appeared for the accused.

Brockie, in evidence, stated that when he first got into the car he insisted on driving it, as he considered Neilson was too drunk. He himself was capable of driving, although he admitted that when he was examined by Dr de Lautour at the watchhousc, the latter had told him that ho would not care to be a passenger in a car which he (Brockie) was driving. The magistrate said that the first question was whether, if the owner of a car was in that car and allowed a person who was intoxicated to drive it, was he guilty of the offence, and could he be so charged? He had no doubt whatever that lie could be so charged. The facts spoke for themselves, and it seemed immaterial whether the owner was charged as a principal or for aiding and abetting. The further question to be determined was whether an owner who was drunk could be absolved from liability, and could, in the circumstances, allow another man to drive. Neilson was yery drunk, but the evidence showed that when Brockie got into the car Ncileon was in such a state that he was capable of coming to a decision —which would probably be a wrong one—but he was not absolutely helpless. The evidence revealed also that he was the owner and that he intended to drive. In the circumstances, the facts must speak for themselves, and Neilson must be convicted.

Senior Sergeant Packer said that Brockie was a first offender, but that Neilsou bad previously been before the court on a similar charge. Mr Robertson submitted that Neilsou’s offence was not a particularly serious one. There had been no great damage done, excepting to a taxi with which the car had collided, and this had been made good. Brockie was largely the victim of circumstances, and ho had, counsel considered, done the right thing in preventing Ncilson from driving. The magistrate imposed a fine of £lO on Brockie, cancelled his licence and prohibited him from driving for 12 months. With regard to Neilson, he had given a definite undertaking when previously before the court not to take liquor when In charge of a car. In the present case a fine could not be imposed, and he would therefore be sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment. In response to a request by Mr Robertson, his Worship fixed security for appeal at £7 7s, and stood the matter down until later in the day to allow counsel to consider whether or not ho should proceed with the appeal. REHEARING GRANTED.

On resuming Mr Robertson said he proposed asking either for a rehearing or for permission to appeal. He respccfully submitted that in the case of Neilsou there had been a miscarriage of justice, as, through a misunderstanding with the police, certain medical evidence had not been produced. The magistrate said that in a criminal charge the court leaned towards granting the admission of any evidence that would bo of assistance to the accused .person. A rehearing would be granted, and Ncilson would be further remanded until 9.30 on Thursday morning, bail being allowed in his own recognisance of £23 and one surety of a like amount, conditional on his not driving a car in the meantime.