OAMARU MOTOR SMASH.

Otago Witness, Issue 3698, 27 January 1925, Page 5

OAMARU MOTOR SMASH.

HESELWOOD committed for TRIAL. OAMARU, January 21. Arising out of tho fatal accident which occurred in the early hours of the morning of January 6, when Robert James Young, bootmaker, was killed as the result of injuries to his head through a car driven bv Ernest Heselwood colliding with a telegraph standard, tho five occupa/.ts of the car wor® before the Magistrate’ Court to-day oa various charges. Mr H. W. Bundle, S.ML* was the presiding magistrate. The circumstances leading to the chargaf were briefly a 3 follow: —A party of fiva left Oamaru in an Overland car for the purpose of allowing Hesclwood to dolivor tome gramophones (for which he holds an agency] at Peebles. Returning, the party called at Georgetown Hotel, leaving thero about 1 a.m. for home. According to the driver of the car, when nearing home the vehicle swerved and the rear portion tarno in contact with a telegiaph and Young, who was on that side of th® car, had his head forced back against th® hood, which was torn off. Later on in th® morning Heselwood, who was arrested by Constable Moore, was remanded by Justice® on a charge of being drunk while in charg® of a motor car.

Edward Allan Hair, James Robertson, Robert Turvey (Mr L. Sumpter), and Ernest Heselwood (Mr P. C. Hjorring) pleaded guilty to being on licensed premises after hours at the Georgetown Hotel. With the exception of Robertson, all were first offenders, and Heselwood, Ilair, and Turvey were fined £1 each, and Robertson ££ (with costs 7s in each case). Edward Michael Leydon (Mr Hjorring) pleaded guilty to (1) selling liquor after hours; (2) keeping his hotel open after hour® for the purpose of selling liquor; and (3) supplying liquor without an order. After

considerable evidence had been heard th® Magistrate remarked that as the selling after hours the defence raised wa® that the sale of liquor was made by the barman, who had no authority to make the sale. The liability of a licensee for th® action of a barman was clearly defined. The circumstances in this particular case were peculiar. He had not had an opportunity of perusing any correspondence regarding th® ageement said to exist between the present licensee and M'Veigh (the former owner). Neither had he had a chance of studying the denial of the licensee regarding his bat>man’s action. He would consider the doco* ments put in and would reserve his decision for one week.

With regard to the charge of supplying liquor after hours the Senior-sergeant stated that he visited tho Georgetown Hotel o*k January 6. Ho made inquiries as to th® liquor supplied to Heselwood on January 5w On the books being examined no Older foif liquor could be found. The Senior-sergeant said tl.e barman had brought an order to him, saying he had kept it in his pocket by mistake. Ernest Heselwood gave evidence that on January 5 he signed an order for liquor at tho Georgetown Hotel, it was the night prior to the accident. To the Magistrate: He signed for two gallons of beer and a bottle of port wine. He did not sign for whisky, lie believed Robertson got the whisky. Constable Abel also gave evidence regarding the order, and in reply to Mr Iljorrinff said Heselwood told the police that he had signed an order but. did not order a bottle of wine which was found in tho car.

The Senior-sergeant said it was peculiar that an order should appear for Robertson and not for Heselwood. He had been promised by the licensee that the order would be produced, but he had not seen it until it appeared in court. Thomas Hurley (barman) gave cvidenc® that Heselwood had signed the order. It> was in a book which he took back to the bar and put in a cupboard. He was not at the hotel next day when the police called, but the licensee told him that no order signed by Hesolwood could be found. H® procured the book for the licensee. To the Magistrate: There must have been a mistake in the order, as Heselwood did not get any whisky. Further evidence having been heard, th® Magistrate said he would like to believe th® evidence of Hurley, but he could not. Th® defendant would be convicted. Tho peiv alty would be fixed after tjie other charge® had been dealt with.

The charge of being drunk while in charge of a car was then preferred againsk Ernest Heselwood (Mr Hjorring), and als® the charge that he did negligently driv® c motor car, thereby causing the death of Robert James Young. The evidence wa® mainly on the lines of that given at th® inquest. Evidence was given by the acting-hous® surgeon at the hospital that he did not

consider Heselwood drunk as he drove the deceased to hospital. Dr John M‘Gregor Scott also gave evidence, saying that there was a strong smell of liquor about the car, and in his opinion accused was the worse for drink. Similar evidence was given by Constabl® Moore, who also related details of the ats rest of Heselwood.

Several other witnesses gave evidence r®* lating to tiie movements of the party oa the preceding day and the morning of th® accident on similar lines to that given all the inquest. Accused pleaded not guilty to each charge, and was oommit.ted for trial at th® Supreme Court to be held at Oamaru oa February 4. Bail was allowed as formerly, accused to report daily to the police.