MOTOR FATALITIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22910, 18 June 1936, Page 6

MOTOR FATALITIES

INQUEST ON VICTIMS

GRAVE CHARGES AGAINST MOTORIST COMMITTED FOR TRIAL The sequel to a tragic motor accident hi Princes street south on the evening of May 9, which resulted in the death of two pedestrians and severe injuries to two others, was heard yesterday in the City Police Court, when John Fran•is Harris a farmer, aged 51 appeared before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, 8.M., charged with being intoxicated while hi charge of a motor car, with causing the death of Thomas Joseph Bogan through an act of omission when, driving a motor car while in a state of intoxication, and with causing the death •f QJiarlee Nicol Stewart through an act of omission when driving a motor car whilevin a‘state of intoxication. The inquest, into the death of Thomas Joseph Hogan and Charles Nicol Stewart was, held concurrently with the hearing, of the case 'for the prosecution, the coroner returning an open verdict. Mr A. C. Hanlon, and with him Mr J. G. Warrington, appeared for the accused; M- M. Ilanan represented the relatives’ of the deceased Kogan and Mr W. H, Carson the'relatival of the deceased Stewart. Mr G. J. L, White and Mr D. A. Solomon appeared for the two women who were injured, and Mr E. J. Anderson watched proceedings, on behalf of : an interested party. The prosecution was conducted by Chief Detective Young.

BEFORE THE -ACCIDENT. Charles Patrick Cull, a taxi-driver, said that about 6.10 p.m. on Saturday, May; 9. he _was driving past the Gladstone Hotel in Maclaggan street, where he was hailed by two men and a woman. He had subsequently ascertained that one of the party was a woman* named Clare Kennedy. .They entered the taxi, and beckoned another woman, whom he later found-*to be Mrs Chooquee, to join them. Witness was instructed to drive to Cargill’s Corner, but at Bridgman street Mrs Kennedy tapped bOn on the back 'and asked him if they had passed the Kensington Hotel. Witness turned his car, and drove back to opposite the Kensington Hotel, where hjs passengers alighted. This was the last he saw of them. Thomas Clarke Muir, licensee of the Kensington Hotel, said that on the evening of May 9, while he was cleaning up the bar, he answered a knock,at the Park terrace door. A man named Rogan, who was accompanied by another man and a woman, asked for a drink, which was refused, whereupon the woman asked him to ring up a certain taxi. The number, however, was engaged, and witness closed the door again. Ruth Leslie Burn, residing at Mornington, recalled that' oh the evening of May 9„ as-sho was waiting on a'. St. Kilda tram near the Oval, she had noticed three or four people standing near the tram stop. She did not notice, their .condition, and their conduct was not such as to attract any particular attention.’ *'• Archibald William Ddbbie Magee, a tram conductor, sftid that on the evening of May 9 the tram of which he was incharge, left the tram sheds at 6.41. On the way south it pulled.up about a chain and a-malf past the Maitland street stop'; and witness' noticed a group of three women and two men standing at the stop, about six’ feet out from the pavement.: One of the women, who, he thought, was the previous, witness boarded the tram, but the others of the group remained where they were, and witness thought at the time that it was'strange that'they' should be standing on the Roadway. A MOTORIST’S OBSERVATIONS.

Janies Albert .Christeson, a sheet-metal worker, residing at South Dunedin, said that shortly’after 6.35 on the evening of May 9 he drOye a motor car'past the intersection of Main South road and Princes street,-where -he saw two men and, two women standing on the roadway, on the south side of the Oral pavilion. He sounded his horn, but they took no notice, and he had to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Witness noticed’that there was a car following’him, and he thought it would be about halfway along, the Oval from the Anderson’s Bay, road; that he first noticed‘the headlights shining on his rear window. ' <t. - i,/ , To Mr Hanlon:- As he passed the Southern Hotel, he overtook a sedan car, which was also travelling south. At this time witness’s speed would be about 20 to 25 miles an hour, and after he passed the other car, it followed him along the Oval. . When, he swerved to avoid the -people, the car was still some distance behind him, but although he saw its lights as he turned the bend approaching Kensington, he lost sight of them when he got on to the straight road. At tips stage he thought that the other car would be somewhere about where he had seen the people. Mr Hanari; • The visibility that night was quite good, was.it not?—-No, -it was poor.' How far away from these people were you when you first saw them?—About 15 yards. And I suppose that whep you first saw, them you could have stopped your car to avoid running into them? —Hardly.

EXCESSIVE SPEED ALLEGED. Stanley Gordon M'Keagg, a driver in the employ of. the Npw Zealand- Express Company, said that shortly .after 6.45 ( on the evening of May 9, he was standing' at the staff post opposite the foot- oi' Maitland street, when,he noticed a-group of four people standing about a chain and a-half on an. angle to the south of him. The two men were standing a few feet from, the kerbing and the women seemed to be standing on the footpath. - Witness’s attention was attracted by a red sedan car which"was 1 travelling south along Princes street at what he considered an excessive speed. So far as he was aware no horn was sounded, and the next thing he heard was a tyre skidding and a woman screaming. Witness went across and saw two men and a woman lying on the road, and another woman who, he thought, was Mrs Chooquee, and whose head was bleeding, sitting up. The 1 other woman (Mrs Kennedy) was lying four or live yards away. Witness suriimohed the- ambulance find" went to attend to Regan, who was four or five yards further south from Mrs Kennedy, : and dragged him .in .-towards the footpath. He thought that the other man w;as lying further south still, while he was attending’ Regain - , accused said to him, “Did you not hear me my horn." Witness replied: No. It was a perfect night.

WITNESS’S SOBRIETY QUESTIONED. Mr Hanlon: What time did you go home for tea?—About 6 o’clock ' Where were you immediately betore you went home for tea? At the football K Mr Harden: But the football match was over before . 5 o'clock; where were you between. then and the time you went home?—l was in the Parkside Hotel, where I had a .couple of beers. Further cross-examined by Mr, Han-lon'as-to What else he. did, witness said he cpiild not remember. He bad tbe two drinks-with a Mr Larkins,. Mr Hanlon: Do you swear-that those were the only drinks’ you had between the time you left the football match and the time of the accident?—Yes. Did you go into a shop and Change a 10s note shortly before the accident occurred?—l cohid not swear to that. _ ■ Were you sober when you went into the shop?—l think I was—certainly I was. • ■ , . After the car passed, where he was standing, continued witness, he lost sight of it for two or three seconds, and therefore he did not see the actual impact. He first saw the car when it was about 200 yards on the Dunedin side of where he was standing, and by tbe sound of the engine it.seemed to be travelling at an excessive speed. Its course, however, was within reason, and it was on its correct side of the road. To Mr Hanan: The nolo near which he was standing was in the centre of the j-oad, so that he had a (dear, unobstructed view of the approaching car. The people whom he observed standing on the other side of the road did not appear- to be drunk. If the car bad sounded its horn he would have heard it.

POLICE SURGEON’S EVIDENCE. Dr Evans said , that about/7.20 p.m. on May 9 he was called to examine the accused at the Police Station; As the latter walked from,the watchhouse to the senior sergeant’s office, witness had 'a' good view of him - .’ and noticed that his gait was staggering, While the examination of the accused was going on he supported himself by holding on to the mantelpiece. His tongue was furred, hja breath smelt of, alcohol, his body swayed, and Kis eyes, which were sluggish'in their reaction to'light,; were closed. There was also a. marked tremor of both, hands. Questioned by witness, accused stated that between. 11 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. that day ho had visited Dr Burns, but he did not know why, and ■■ eould not say ; that he had any .specific complaint. After 12.30 ho had visited the Public Trust offices, and after having afternoon tea at the Vcdic Cafe," had gone to the pictures. At 5.50 p.m. ho was in the Gridiron Hotel, where he had been discussing business with a man from Dalgety’s. Witness had previously stated that.it was not until 1 after 6 o’clock that he had left the" Gridiron Hotel, where ho had been having an argument with abookmaker. He also stated that he had blown hjs horn twice, and had knocked .over two or three people who were standing on the road'. He had pulled up within 12 yards. Witness could not find that the accused was suffering from any organic disease. From his examination, be had formed the opinion that he was suffering from alcoholism, that his judgment was impaired, and that, in the. condition, he was'in; he was not fit to drive a car. A QUESTION OF DUTY.

Mr Hanlon: Were you called in as a medical export,'• or to listen to the ramblings of this man who, you say, was drunk?—To give my opinion whether he was drunk or not. Was it necessary for you to get a rigmarole from a man as to where he was and what he was doing, and to take down a statement, in order to form an opinion whether he was drunk or sober?—Perfectly. Then, if he tells you he was at Dalfreiy’s during the afternoon that would help you to say whether he was sober or not?—One:musf test the memory with regard to recent events. Is that' necessary?—That is what is laid down in the text books. Was this examination to help you or the police, -to -determine whether the accused ‘v ve re drunk or sober? It was to help me. . And the police, by getting admissions? —The thought of helping the police never entered my head. ' To Mr Hanan: The test applied was the same as that used by members of the medical profession, and would have been used by any doctor that the accused might have called. A WITNESS RE-EXAMINED.

At this stage, Mr Hanlon made an application for the witness M'Kcagg to be recalled. It was most important that he should be re-examined before he left the court. Application was granted, _ and M'Keagg took the witness stand again. Mr Hanlon; Is it not a fact that you left' the Parksidc Hotel at 10 minutes past 5? , . ... . ' Witness: No, It was nearer half past 5

Did you not go straight from the Parkside Hotel to the Kensington Hotel, and have several drinks? —No. . . , Pressed bv Mr Hanlon, witness denied that he had been near the Kensington Hotel on that evening, and that he had been talking outside the hotel with some other people between 6 and 6.30 p.m. Chief Detective Young said he thought there was some explanation for Mr Hanlon’s rc-cxainination. “Have you, he asked witness, “ a brother who is very like you?"’’—“Yes,” replied witness, out I ,do not know where, he is just now, and I 'do not know where he was on the day in question.” TAXI-DRIVER’S STORY.

William Hugh Henry Newall, a taxidriver, said that on the evening of the accident, lie was discharging a passenger about 150 yards north of Maitland street when lie heard a crash and a woman screaming. His taxi was facing north, and he turned and drove to the scene of the accident. He noticed two women sitting on the kerb, and two men lying half on and half off the footpath. He made inquiries as to who was the driver of the car, and the accused volunteered the information that he had blown the

horn twice, but that the people would not get out of the road. He appeared to witness to bo in a dazed condition, but although he smelt of liquor, witness would not say that he was intoxicated. The visibility, was good, and it was a perfect night for driving. .To Mr Warrington: His speech was quite rational and-.he was steady on his feet. ' ' ‘ To Mr Carson: It would be possible to distinguish the figure of a man 100 yards from the scene of the accident. Mr Hanan: Did Harris make any further statements to. you?—No. So that he did not say to you that these people’ had stepped off the footpath in front of the car or run about on the road so as to cause confusion ?—No. POSITIONS OF THE VICTIMS.

Olive May Parkinson, a married woman residing in Bay. View road, described the positions of the. injured people immediately after the accident. ; POLICE EVIDENCE,

Constable D. Crawford gave evidence that when he first spoke to the accused the latter’s breath smelt of liquor, although he denied that he had been drinking anything. A little later, however, he admitted that he had had two or three drinks. Witness asked him if he had seen the people before lie struck them, to which the accused replied, “ Yes, 1 tooted my horn, but they walked in front of me. I was travelling at ■25 ■ miles an hour.” He further stated that he was on his way to the south end to pick up his two, girls. Witness formed the opinion that, although he could talk quite rationally, the accused was under the influence of liquor, as his senses were dulled and his gait was unsteady. When taken to'the watchhouse, the accused was seen by Senior! Sergeant Packer. Constable Matthews, and the police surgeon were summoned. As the accused was crossing from the watchhouse to the senior sergeant’s office his gait was still unsteady. Witnes° went on to submit a series of measurements taken at the scene of the accident, and gave the distance between two tyre-burns on the road and the spot wfcere the car finally stopped as three chains.

To Mr Hanan:. The witness M'Keagg. when first interviewed, seemed perfectly sober. ' ' '

Evidence as to the' accused's condition when he was brought to the Police Station was tendered by Senior Sergeant Packer, who corroborated the previous witness’s statement as to_ Harris’s gait and the smell of liquor in bis breath. His speech -was clear, but be did not annear to take an interest in the accident. Witness bad known the accused for the past. 10 years, and it was the first occasion on which lie bad known of bis being the worse for liquor. THE ACCUSED’S MOVEMENTS; Harry Douglas May, a salesman in the employ of Dalgety and Co., said that he had seen the accused at 10,50 on the morning of May 9,.and.again at 2.30 p.ra. On the latter occasion he was in the commercial room of the Gridiron Hotel, and witness was in his company for about five minutes. Neither of them, however, had any liquor, and before leaving witness 'made an appointment to meet the accused about a-quarter to six at the hotel. Witness kept the appointment but the accused did not arrive. To Mr Warrington: When he saw the accused at 2.30 there was not the slightest sign of liquor on him. Grace Alexandra Finnegan, wife of the licensee of the Gridiron Hotel, said she had known the accused for about 15 months, as when he came to Dunedin he usually stayed at the hotel. On May 0 witness first saw the accused for a few minutes after lunch, and did not see him again until after 5.30. when he was in the private bar, and had two brandies. He left the hotel at five minutes to 6. saying that he was going to get his children. To Mr Warrington: The second brandy was a small one.

Arthur Errol Tilbury, son of the licensee of the Shiel Hill Hotel, gave evidence of having seen the accused about 4 p.m. ou May 9 in the commercial room of the hotel. He inquired for witness’s father, who was absent in Oamani, and remained at the hotel about 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. He had no liquor, but he took a glass of port wine out to a passenger in his car. Mr Hanlon; Did you not sell a bottle of liquor to the accused for him to take away?—No.

You arc quite certain of that?—Quito certain.

SCENE OF THE TRAGEDY.

Detective Gibson produced measurements made at the scene of the accident On the morning of May 10. He stated that the street lighting at this locality was good. To Mr Warrington: There was only one pole without a light on it, and this was just about opposite the apparent point of impact. This witness’s evidence concluded the ;asc for the prosecution. AN ALLEGATION DENIED.

Mr Hanan referred to an allegation which had been made earlier in the hearing that the witness M'Keagg had been .drinking in the Kensington Hotel. That morning a man named Larkins had been interviewed by one of the counsel engaged in the case, and had stated that he and M'Keagg had had liquor in that hotel. He now denied this, explaining that he had become flustered when interviewed. The magistrate pointed out that, the only evidence before the court regarding this matter was M'Keagg’s denial of the allegation. The matter, therefore,' might rest at that. COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

The accused, pleading not guilty, reserved his defence and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial, bail being allowed in his own recognisance of £IOOO, and two sureties of £SOO, CORONER’S VERDICT’!

In respect of the inquest proceedings his Worship said that it would not be proper for him to comment on the evidence nor to deal with the question of culpability or otherwise. He, therefore, delivered a formal verdict that Thomas Joseph Rogan died from haemorrhage and shock following severe injuries to the abdomen caused by being knocked clown by a motor, car driven by John Francis Harris in Princes street on May 0, 1936. The verdict in the case of Stewart would be that he died from haemorrhage into the chest cavity and shock, the result of severe injuries to the chest and ribs caused by being knocked down by a motor car driven by John Francis Harris in Princes street on May 9.