DRUNKEN MOTORIST.

Otago Witness, Issue 3757, 16 March 1926, Page 27

DRUNKEN MOTORIST.

ACCIDENT IN PRINCES STREET. ACCUSED FINED £lO. David Russell Thompson was charged before Mr H. W. Bundle. S.M., at me City Police Court on Friday with having been in ch.irge of a mcior-car while drunk, on January 24. He pleaded not guilty and was defended by Mr Barrowclough. Leonard Ciaude Childs stated that he was proceeding along Princes street with his motor lorry or January 24. lie saw two men and asked if they were going south and offered to give them a lift. As they came towards him he saw a motorcar approaching along Princes street. It flashed past him and a man “went up in the air.” Witness saw defendant,' who was driving the car, and thought he was rather drunk; more than he (witness) would like to be. Defendant admitted that he was drunk. Witness saw four men in the car. and three of them were drunk. The injured man was assited into the trainway sheds, and ho was there attended to, later being taknn away to the hosptal. To Mr Barrowclough: The car went some distance after hitting the man The driver made no attempt to get away. To Senior Sergeant Quartermain: Others in tho car claimed to bo the driver. Frank Alexander, who was with Childs when the accident occurred, said accused was half drunk. Childs went to the inlured man and witness went to the back of the car and took the number of it. Janies Stewart gave evidence regarding the mlured man being brought to the tramsheds. The accused was under the influence °* liquor and was staggering about. To Mr Barrowclough : There was one man, who he understood was one of the four in the car, who * was to all appearance sober.

Murray Peter M‘Gregor said he considered that accused was drunk. The man who was injured objected to accused driving him to the hospital. Francis William King, brother-in-law of the injured man. said accused gave him the impression of being under the influence of liquor.

Senior Sergeant Quartermain stated that one constable would say that the accused was sober. He (the sergeant) had just come back from Christchurch and had not had t* l * lo to have him in attendance. Camp bell, the injured man. would not attend He had said that he was satisfied with the arrangements with Thompson, and he would have to be subpoenaed. T he case was adjourned to the afternoon, ind on being resumed Thomas Campbell* fruiterer and confectionerer, gave evidence as to being knocked down. Accused was under the inflhence of liqor. Witness had received an 1.0. U. for £l2 from accused in connection with the accident. His wounds were mostly superficial. All accused companions wore more or less under the Influence of drink.

To Mr Barrowclough: Accused had pointed out another man with him ns having been the driver of the car. Accused could stand on his feet. Witness noticed a certain amount of swaying about. He (witness) did not want any court proceedings

Constable Price said as far as he couli see accused was quite all right.. He (the constable) arrived on the scene after the accident Witness would not swear that accused was intoxicated or sober.

Constable Neill stated that accused was all right. He was absolutely sober. Mr Bundle said it was unfortunate that witness did not know more about the matter. It was necessary that diligent inquiries should be made at the time. He saw no reason why a short statement should not have been obtained from the persons present.

Mr Barrowclough said that there would be a good deal of reliable evidence called to show that Thompson was not drunk at the time the accident occurred. He would call the man and his wife with whom Thompson had been spending the evening, and the word of these two could be relied upon. They would say that he was sober when - he left them late in the evening. They would also say that there was part of the road in a lane that was difficult to manoeuvre, and that Thompson had manoeuvred it well. Counsel wished to draw attention to theifact that there could be no question about the party of men having got together to spend a convivial evening, and going home after it. The evidence for the prosecution ha l been very reluctantly given. All these people, immediately after the accident, were concerned with, and discussing, who was to blame for it. He (counsel) expected that it would be suggested that Thompson had had an opportunity, after half an hour, of sobering up, and that although not sober liefore he might be sober when seen by the constable. It was difficult to know what was a state of intoxication Counsel proceeded to comment on the conflict of evidence.

William Pine, a contractor, . living at Normanby. stated that on the evening of Januaiy 25 defendant had spent the evening with witness, his wife, and his sister-in-law, and wl en he left he was perfectly sober.. On ’leaving witness’s house, defendant had successfully turned his car in a very narraw lane, which witness considered was a piece of good driving.—Ellen Pine, wife of the previous witness, corroborated his statements

Ernest Lawience Much more, a salesman, residing at Dunedin, stated that on the day in question he had met Thomson by arrangement,, and along with two other men had been with him when he drove along Princes street, and until the accident occurred as far as he could see, defendant woe sober. After the accident he had remained with defendant for about half an hour, hut he had not said that he was the driver of the car. Witness further stated that he had driven the injured man to the hospital as he considered Thomson was too upset to' do so. He had not heard the injured man object to Thomson’s driving the oar. He had had no drink that night. Robert James Butler, a timber-worker, residing in Cumberland street, stated that he was one of the passengers in Thomson’s car when the accident occurred, and in his opinion defendant was sober. Witness hod been at the Exhibition on the previous evening, and had two drinl i at a friend’s place after leaving. He met Thomson about 1.30 in the morning. Br Barrowclough pointed out that the fact that none of the witnesses for the prooecution had mentioned to the constable

that defendant was' drunk, and this, he maintained, created a doubt to which defendant should be entitled. Mr Bundle, in giving his decision, raid defendant was charged with having been drunk while in charge of a motor-car. Tho charge was a serious one. and it was quite proper that the matter should be very fully considered. The accident had oocurred between 1 and 2 o’clock on a Sunday morning. The witnesses for the prosecution were not likely to colour their statements. Me Bundle went on to review the evidence, and said it was clear from the evidence ofc Childs and the other witnesses that defendant was under the influence of liquor. It was clearly M‘Gregor’s opinion that defendant was drunk, and Campbell had given his evidence to a certain extent under protest. All the witnesses he had mentioned said defendant had been under the influence of drink and some said he was drunk. The police had come on the scene half an hour la f er, and rather fragmentary inquiries had been made bv them. Mr Bundle then reviewed the evidence of the witnesses for the defence, and said ho must decide whether the police had established beyond reasonable doubt that Thompson was drunk, and the conclusion forced upon him was that Thompson immediately aftpr the accident was in such a state that the witnesses for the prosecution, who had given their evidence quite naturally and fairly, had come to the conclusion that he was drunk. Mis condition might he duo to excitement, and he would then appear to be under the influence of liquor, when he was really suffering from strong excitement. That was the possibility he had to consider. He had considered it, and he had considered it in relation to the evidence given by the prosecution, and the evidence given by the constables, and he was quite unable to find that Thompson’s state was due to excitement. He could not believe it. Thompson was in a state of intoxication and unfit to drive a car. A man in that state might recover quite quickly. When the nolice arrived half an hour later, the constable, who saw Thompson, and had made a rather perfunctory examination, had stated that he was sober. But in his (Mr Bundle’s) opinion, Thompson was under the influence of liquor and should not have been in charge of a motor vehicle. Mr Barrowclough mentioned that defendant was a motor salesman, and that whatever the penalty was it. would be a serious matter for him. * Mr Bundle said ho would take into consideration the time at which this had occurred and that defendant had so far recovered that the police constables stated that he was sober. He had been found drunk in charge of a motor car, and was very luekv that he had not got to stand his trial for manslaughter. He would bo fined £lO, with costs £3 19s, and would have bis license cancelled for 12 months. A rrmuth would be allowed in which to pay the fine.